Spiderman (2002) vs The Amazing Spider-man (2012)

deadybai

Which movie was better. Personally I preferred the 'original' as I felt Peter Parker was better as Tobey Macguire and the new one felt more like a chick flick than a superhero movie.

All in all, which movie was the better?

Immolation

The earlier version cause Defoe was a much better baddie.

deadybai

Immolation wrote: »

The earlier version cause Defoe was a much better baddie.

yep I felt that too. Although when I looked it up on the web, everyone preferred the guy in the reboot because he was given more screen time. But personally I though Defoe was the best.

wandatowell

Dr. Octo was great as a baddy. Does really relate to the thread much but still

Didn't think much of the 2002 one, and didn't bother with the recent one, as I thought it looked awful. I'll watch when RTE or TV3 get around to showing it.

keelanj69

I was a growing boy when I first saw that rain scene in Spiderman (2002)

deadybai

keelanj69 wrote: »

I was a growing boy when I first saw that rain scene in Spiderman (2002)

haha. so innocent

Nerdkiller1991

keelanj69 wrote: »

I was a growing boy when I first saw that rain scene in Spiderman (2002)

That wasn't the only thing that was growing, that day. *BA-DUM-TISH*

And yeah, Spidey '02 for me. Personally, I thought that ASM was a big pile of crap that just got worse with each viewing. Even Spidey 3 was better.

EdenHazard

I like Garfield, but I also liked Toby. Its a tough one, I liked TAS more for the opening parts, the Lizard was terrible.

Tipsy McSwagger

Neither. There has never been a good Spiderman film because he's a boring superhero (in the films) and his relationship with Mary Jane drags on and on and on. The films are for kids. There is no sense of darkness to them. They are not even cheesy enough to enjoy.

Turtyturd

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Neither. There has never been a good Spiderman film because he's a boring superhero (in the films) and his relationship with Mary Jane drags on and on and on. The films are for kids. There is no sense of darkness to them. They are not even cheesy enough to enjoy.

Thanks for settimg everyone straight.

Between the two they would have a very good movie. Maguire's Parker was better and Garfield's Spider-man was better. Goblin is a much better villain but would have benefitted from a prosthetics/cgi approach. Gwen Stacey is the better love interest (regardless of the medium) but Emma Stone is a terrible choice to play her. Her storyline is also a perfectly 'dark' storyline which is apparently essential for superhero films....thanks Batman.

Tipsy McSwagger

Turtyturd wrote: »

Thanks for settimg everyone straight.

Between the two they would have a very good movie. Maguire's Parker was better and Garfield's Spider-man was better. Goblin is a much better villain but would have benefitted from a prosthetics/cgi approach. Gwen Stacey is the better love interest (regardless of the medium) but Emma Stone is a terrible choice to play her. Her storyline is also a perfectly 'dark' storyline which is apparently essential for superhero films....thanks Batman.

Just giving my opinion, and between the two you would still have a shyte film.

Mickeroo

Not every superhero has to be dark, what works for Batman won't work for Spider-Man (or Superman for that matter!). Spider-Man 2 is the best of the lot by a mile still imo.

thorbarry

While I think the new one was a better film, i didnt enjoy it as much as previous one as it rehashed the origin story, which we'd already seen.

Having said that, I think the second one will be very good because it doesnt have to do that

DirkVoodoo

I'll have to come back to this thread later with a more detailed view. I was a massive fan of the first 2 Spiderman movies. Unfortunately, the third one was not only a poor movie, but highlighted what was wrong with the first two.

Defoe as a good baddie? He pretty much chewed every single bit of scenery he got close to. He had some good moments (mostly as Norman Osborn), but he often strayed into excessively camp territory whenever he put on that awful costume:

"Sleeeeep, Spider"

"Let die the woman you love, or suffer the little children"

"Hello my pretty" <- Seriously, wicked witch of the west???

"Godspeed Spiderman"

I think he was let down by one of the worst costume designs in recent superhero films, it pretty much meant that without any facial expression he had to rely on mime-like bodily expression and an overly theatrical voice.

However, Green Goblin of the comic books is not some power-ranger clown bad guy, he is a joker level sadist and psychopath, that was rarely shown in the movie. We got a B-villain performance instead.

Tobey Maguire was too old to play Peter Parker. End of. He's not a very good actor and he wasn't really dorky as much as he was whiney and dull.

For me, the best castings in the original were James Franco (did well with an underdeveloped Harry) and JK Simmons who simply WAS JJ Jameson and provided excellent comic relief.

Some of the ending sequences were great, that final fight between Spidey and Goblin ranks as one of my favourites, lots of Raimi visual style there. But too many cheesy moments (little kid about to be crushed by world balloon, poorly choreographed action sequences, post 911 sentimentality, Chad Kroeger)

Handsome Bob

TASM's biggest problem is that Spider-man (2002) exists. It's a good film, but just suffers too much from retreading old ground.

Having said this though, it looks like it's very much carving out its own path in the sequel. It also doesn't hurt that Stone and Garfield have an amazing chemistry to build upon, which was the best thing to come out of TASM imo.

wandatowell

EdenHazard wrote: »

the Lizard was terrible.

Spot on, Ruined the movie for me tbh

johnny_ultimate

Amazing Spider-Man is as cynical as filmmaking gets. Honestly, Sony are basically just giving the viewer the middle finger with it. Mark Webb, bless 'im, just doesn't have the talent to overwhelm the stink of deplorable cash-grab off the whole thing. It's rare to see a film with literally no idea of its own, but that's the kind of thing we're dealing with. A few generically sassy performances count for little, but at least occasionally inject a little bit of enthusiasm into procedures. But mostly a deeply compromised, annoying piece of crap.

Spider-Man wasn't the epitome of rebellious, independent cinema either, but it was fun enough on its own limited terms. The sequel especially had enough Raimi flourishes to entertain, and there's a mild, innocent charm to them, and they capture an old-fashioned comic book vibe well. That the 'reboot' just feels like a watered down, hollow, pointless retread of what was only merely alright in the first place says it all.

brianregan09

I prefered the new one mostly because i don't like tobey maguire and 2nd like some already said they **** all over the Green Goblin , and they did that with Sandman and Venom too in the 3rd one, the 2nd was mostly perfect, Kirsten Dunst was a terrible Mary Jane too take her and Tobey out of 2 and stick in Garfield and Stone and you have a great movie

cena

spiderman 2002 had a great soundtrack. Still listen to it

Nerdkiller1991

brianregan09 wrote: »

I prefered the new one mostly because i don't like tobey maguire and 2nd like some already said they **** all over the Green Goblin , and they did that with Sandman and Venom too in the 3rd one, the 2nd was mostly perfect, Kirsten Dunst was a terrible Mary Jane too take her and Tobey out of 2 and stick in Garfield and Stone and you have a great movie

Oh, I beg to differ. First off, on who plays Peter Parker. In ASM, I found that Andrew Garfield came off as unlikeable in my mind. When you look back at the first Spidey movie,

at the end Pete chooses not to be with MJ for the fear that if someone knew his secret identity, it would mean that the people close to him would be at threat from Spiderman's enemies. Pete experienced this first hand when Green Goblin terrorised Aunt May after he found out who he was.

In ASM on the other hand (and something I caught on another viewing),

Pete not only goes after Gwen, revealing his superhero identity to her, when he makes a promise to a dying Captain Stacy to stay away from her, what does he do? Immediately break said promise ("some promises were meant to be broken." Yup. Those were the actual words spoken at the end of the movie. YOUR HERO, EVERYONE!)

In short, Mark Webb's rendition of Spiderman has learned nothing (at least so far). But hey. At least he likes Rear Window.

As for the movie itself, not only is it a step down compared to what Raimi's Spiderman offered (the action, the score, the plot, the way Pete's development into Spiderman was handled), but we have to go though another origin story of Pete becoming Spiderman. If you thought Green Goblin was terrible (shame on you for not looking past the costume and not into Dafoe's great performance), then you would not believe how bad The Lizard was. His motivation (turning the public into lizard people) was clichéd at best, terrible at worst. With Goblin, his original motivation was legitimate. Take out the competition and keep control of his company. Also, the way the "chasing Uncle Ben's killer" bit was also wasted. Only lasted for about 10 minutes, without resolution, before changing plot points. Unless this is followed up in the sequel (and trust me, with all the hoo haa going down on that, it ain't looking good), then the whole thing was just a waste of time.

Amazing Spiderman is the epitome of "unnecessary reboot". It's executive oversight at its most glaringly obvious. The way they treated Sam Raimi with Spiderman 3 (DAMMIT, he did not want Venom!) and what would later happen will go down as how not to treat your franchise, with the way Sony wanted to retain the rights to the franchise. My advice? Stick to the goddamn plan and treat your employee (and franchise) with respect.

Also, am I the only guy who doesn't get the beef with what people have against Tobey Maguire?

Harvey Low Fat Milk

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Amazing Spider-Man is as cynical as filmmaking gets. Honestly, Sony are basically just giving the viewer the middle finger with it.

Totally agreed. Although do they pretty much always have to be making Spider-Man films now to retain the rights and risk losing the character to Marvel like Daredevil with 20th Century Fox?

Spiderman (2002) all the way. I saw TAS with a friend of mine and we both completely lost interest in it towards the end. There was barely anything of note about it, but all I can remember is how terrible the Lizard was.

krudler

The 2002 movie hasnt aged well at all, the CGI is absolutely appalling in it. AMS is..ok, its not godawful its not good, it could have been much better and the fact it was purely made to hold onto those precious franchise rights made it purely by the numbers. Garfield was good in the role as was Emma Stone. It's a pity the rights didnt go to Marvel and they could have worked him into the Avengers universe with Garfield still in the role.

I'm sick of origin stories at this point, do audiences REALLY need to be told the origin of Spider-Man again? anyone with even a passing knowledge of comics knows teenager+ radioactive spider= Spider-Man. There was no need to spend the first hour of another movie showing the same thing again.

Harvey Low Fat Milk

krudler wrote: »

It's a pity the rights didnt go to Marvel and they could have worked him into the Avengers universe with Garfield still in the role.

I agree with that in principle but I'm finding the Marvel films are getting very uniform in execution which works when they are all building towards the Avengers but I'm starting to pine for standalone films and series that has a different tone from the Phase One stuff although I have heard they are remedying this with Phase Two, here's hoping.

krudler

Harvey Low Fat Milk wrote: »

I agree with that in principle but I'm finding the Marvel films are getting very uniform in execution which works when they are all building towards the Avengers but I'm starting to pine for standalone films and series that has a different tone from the Phase One stuff although I have heard they are remedying this with Phase Two, here's hoping.

I think now that Avengers is out of the way they have a bit more breathing room for the standalone stuff before Avengers 2 rolls around, all the phase one stuff was building for one movie, and it was a first for a franchise to do that. to their credit they did a great job of trying them all together and bringing them into the one film.

Gbear

I seriously hated Garfield as Spiderman. He was just an annoying gob****e.

Also... if you're capable of jumping 30 feet and breaking a goalpost with a football then I'm pretty sure people would put 2 and 2 together.

DirkVoodoo

krudler wrote: »

The 2002 movie hasnt aged well at all, the CGI is absolutely appalling in it. AMS is..ok, its not godawful its not good, it could have been much better and the fact it was purely made to hold onto those precious franchise rights made it purely by the numbers. Garfield was good in the role as was Emma Stone. It's a pity the rights didnt go to Marvel and they could have worked him into the Avengers universe with Garfield still in the role.

I'm sick of origin stories at this point, do audiences REALLY need to be told the origin of Spider-Man again? anyone with even a passing knowledge of comics knows teenager+ radioactive spider= Spider-Man. There was no need to spend the first hour of another movie showing the same thing again.

Agreed. I'm at risk of becoming "that guy who goes on about animation over live action superheroes", but much like with DC, one of the most faithful adaptations of Spiderman was the recent "Spectacular Spiderman" cartoon. Again, it's aimed at kids, but some of it was excellent.

How did that show start? With Spiderman as Spiderman...there were brief flashes throughout the two seasons to his origins, but the writers wisely assumed that the birth of the character is so ingrained in the public consciousness (even amongst the children who it was aimed at), that there was no need to waste precious script time explaining it again.

We all know Peter's origins as the geeky kid who becomes the geeky hero, his motivation to fight crime because his selfish abuse of his powers resulted in the death of Uncle Ben. I'm afraid that Sony's dollar-driven reboot might pave the way for more "reboots" that try to re-imagine a heroes origins by making the most trivial alterations possible ("Oh, so clever, they rewrote Uncle Ben's speech so he more or less says the same thing but without any of the gravitas delivered by Cliff Robertson").

And not once did they exploit the mechanical webshooters, that's a key part of Spiderman! Ok, Lizard crushes them, but there was no running out of fluid (filament?) or using cartridges as improvised weapons.

And poor pony boy was used in a scene that tops the cringefest of Spiderman 3's construction site showdown, that was a hard one to take. A lot of overtime being paid to the midnight crane workers in Manhattan I imagine.

The script was appalling, but I still believe Garfield and Stone were a more believable pairing than Maguire and Dunst.

DirkVoodoo

Gbear wrote: »

I seriously hated Garfield as Spiderman. He was just an annoying gob****e.

Also... if you're capable of jumping 30 feet and breaking a goalpost with a football then I'm pretty sure people would put 2 and 2 together.

Again, fault of the script. That was a poor scene and I believe was removed from the theatrical showing.

Anyone who has read the comics knows Parker is a wisecracking smartass, moreso when he is Spiderman...Maguire's Parker was a goody-two-shoes whose best banter with an enemy was "it's you whose out Gobby, out of your mind!". That might have been Peter Parker in the 60s, but any recent incarnation has had him as smart, dorky and sarcastic...like more modern geeks.

krudler

Yeah, I always liked how Burton's Batman had him as Batman from the opening scene, the origin is told in one simple flashback it doesn't spend an hour building up why he becomes Batman. Begins was different as it was specifically the origin and it was handled really well, working Batman into a more contemporary world. There was no need for a Spider-Man origin again, it was less than a decade since the Raimi one, its not an old film by any means and was a gigantic hit, its not like people will have forgotten the basics.

DirkVoodoo

krudler wrote: »

Yeah, I always liked how Burton's Batman had him as Batman from the opening scene, the origin is told in one simple flashback it doesn't spend an hour building up why he becomes Batman. Begins was different as it was specifically the origin and it was handled really well, working Batman into a more contemporary world. There was no need for a Spider-Man origin again, it was less than a decade since the Raimi one, its not an old film by any means and was a gigantic hit, its not like people will have forgotten the basics.

OOOH! Burton's Batman was and still is fantastic (mostly due to the work of the genius that was Anton Furst) but retconning the origin story to remove Joe Chill and have Jack Napier as the murderer of his parents was not cool.

At all

fluke

Def the 2002 film. Though Spiderman 2 is by far the best.

Spiderman (2002) feels like a more epic movie in comparison to the reboot. As whingey as Maguire was Garfield is too good-looking (and too mumble core) to portray Peter Parker.

I listened to a movie podcast a where they noted how odd it was that Sony cast Garfield and made him look like James Franco's Harry Osborne.

Nerdkiller1991

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

OOOH! Burton's Batman was and still is fantastic (mostly due to the work of the genius that was Anton Furst) but retconning the origin story to remove Joe Chill and have Jack Napier as the murderer of his parents was not cool.

At all

Tell me...have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

fluke wrote: »

Def the 2002 film. Though Spiderman 2 is by far the best.

Spiderman (2002) feels like a more epic movie in comparison to the reboot. As whingey as Maguire was Garfield is too good-looking (and too mumble core) to portray Peter Parker.

I listened to a movie podcast a where they noted how odd it was that Sony cast Garfield and made him look like James Franco's Harry Osborne.

Oh, yes! That's another problem I had with ASM's Pete. He's too much of a pretty boy. Yet they make it seem like he's a total dork. Please. He's an average, 26 year old high school student with nerdish characteristics at best.

And may I see that podcast?

krudler

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Tell me...have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Oh, yes! That's another problem I had with ASM's Pete. He's too much of a pretty boy. Yet they make it seem like he's a total dork. Please. He's an average, 26 year old high school student with nerdish characteristics at best.

And may I see that podcast?

Who has great hair, its pretty athletic and confident and really smart. Those aren't the hallmarks of a dorky teenager.

DirkVoodoo

Gentlemen, I give to you your Peter Parker:



Unfortunately, the idea of an actual Peter Parker goes against the Hollywood idea of a leading man. So we get cool, good looking types playing supposed geeks and losers.

fluke

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

And may I see that podcast?

I listen to the guys here a lot so it's either the podcast linked below or the premium podcast they've done on the Spiderman Trilogy, But I'm almost sure it's this one.

http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/07/09/film-junk-podcast-episode-376-the-amazing-spider-man/

Nervous Wreck

krudler wrote: »

Who has great hair, its pretty athletic and confident and really smart. Those aren't the hallmarks of a dorky teenager.

They're hallmarks of Peter Parker.

Nerdkiller1991

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

They're hallmarks of Peter Parker.

Maybe when he got out of high school in the comics, but this is Pete in high school and judging from the end of the film, they're gonna stick to that until probably the third movie.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn't think much of the 2002 one, and didn't bother with the recent one, as I thought it looked awful. I'll watch when RTE or TV3 get around to showing it.

I've just began watching The Amazing Spiderman. I'll report back in a couple of hours.

Nerdkiller1991

Well, lookie-loo what I just found.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/5995-The-Amazing-Spider-Man

Also, still waiting for that report back, 3D Person Above.

Ah, yes!


Given the length of the film, I thought it was poorly managed. I think they dragged out the first hour or so, and didn't spend enough time or detail, with Spiderman v Lizard. The 'conflict' with Lizard was so poor, really bad. I sensed that the long haired blonde guy was more of a nemesis than Lizard, and Lizard was more of a side show, than anything. The weak build up between Spidey and Lizard didn't even build up to an epic finish, it just trickled along and ended as badly as it had progressed.

Thwip!

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Maybe when he got out of high school in the comics, but this is Pete in high school and judging from the end of the film, they're gonna stick to that until probably the third movie.

They're hallmarks of Ultimate Peter Parker though

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Agreed. I'm at risk of becoming "that guy who goes on about animation over live action superheroes", but much like with DC, one of the most faithful adaptations of Spiderman was the recent "Spectacular Spiderman" cartoon. Again, it's aimed at kids, but some of it was excellent.

How did that show start? With Spiderman as Spiderman...there were brief flashes throughout the two seasons to his origins, but the writers wisely assumed that the birth of the character is so ingrained in the public consciousness (even amongst the children who it was aimed at), that there was no need to waste precious script time explaining it again.

We all know Peter's origins as the geeky kid who becomes the geeky hero, his motivation to fight crime because his selfish abuse of his powers resulted in the death of Uncle Ben. I'm afraid that Sony's dollar-driven reboot might pave the way for more "reboots" that try to re-imagine a heroes origins by making the most trivial alterations possible ("Oh, so clever, they rewrote Uncle Ben's speech so he more or less says the same thing but without any of the gravitas delivered by Cliff Robertson").

And not once did they exploit the mechanical webshooters, that's a key part of Spiderman! Ok, Lizard crushes them, but there was no running out of fluid (filament?) or using cartridges as improvised weapons.

And poor pony boy was used in a scene that tops the cringefest of Spiderman 3's construction site showdown, that was a hard one to take. A lot of overtime being paid to the midnight crane workers in Manhattan I imagine.

The script was appalling, but I still believe Garfield and Stone were a more believable pairing than Maguire and Dunst.

Man I miss that show


Garfield and Stone had more chemistry.
Preferred Garfield's interpretation of the character.
Preferred Defoe as a villain though
I'm fairly tied on the scores, though Elfman's is more memorable

Ziegfeldgirl27

OK having recently just watched ASM I am ready to give my honest opinion.

In my opinion, there is no way it is anywhere near as good as the 2002 film.
Garfield was terrible in it. He mumbled every line to the point I had to put the subtitles on to understand what he was saying. I did not like his interpretation of Peter Parker. Instead of being nerdy, I felt he was the kind of person who is just odd. When you compare this with Tobey Maguire's performance, you realise Tobey got it right. In the 2002 film Peter was super intelligent, shy, awkward, all those things.

Then the contrast between ASM Peter Parker and Spiderman was unreal. I hated his "one-liners" and it was quite unbelievable to me that it was the same character.

There was no emotion in this film at all. I know everyone criticised Maguire's performance as being too whiney but for me that was quite endearing to the character. In a way you could sense the struggles in the characters mind. In the ASM there was nothing like that and there was kind of no human aspect to Spiderman.

So for me, 2002 film all the way. I don't even know why they needed to make the ASM. They should have just stopped making Spiderman films after Spiderman 2.

Jonny7

Where's the both were **** option?

Nerdkiller1991

Jonny7 wrote: »

Where's the both were **** option?

It's right outside the door where I'll be kicking you out for thinking Sam Raimi's Spiderman was bad.

melekalikimaka

Spiderman WAS my favorite marvel character, the first 3 ruined all that and the reboot made me spite the superhero over Emma Stone :mad: