Controversial Spider-Man Opinions

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Doesn't that upset you that those were also the worst Spider-Man movies?

It's possible to dislike a movie and still like a few things that you think were fine or steps in the right direction.

I don't like Snyder or BVS, but I think the warehouse fight is the best live-action Batman fight scene and should be the model for Batman fight scenes going forward.

Parts of the Garfield movie like having Spider-Man develop a different voice and persona to Peter weren't bad ideas. In the case of the MCU, despite my dislike for a lot of it, it has stuff that I think are decent in conception.

[PCN24454]

Doesn't that upset you that those were also the worst Spider-Man movies?

Well my Controversial Opinion is that I still prefer the Garfield movies to all the other ones.

[HypnoHustler]

I didn't say anything about the Raimi films

Didn’t say you did. But you mentioned the movies, and I wanted to as well.

, but it's clear they are the definitive Spider-Man films. Decisions made for the Amazing Films, the MCU films, and Into the Spider-Verse were all in response to the Raimi films.

What’s your proof of this?

The actual quality of those films don't even matter anymore. They're the Richard Donner Superman films of Spider-Man, and every Spidey film that followed are in their shadow.

I guess this isn’t a good time to mention that I think the Richard Donner Superman films are overrated too, eh.

and the moments the
Spider-Verse also relies on knowledge of the Raimi movies as shorthand.

Total baloney. It’s a brilliant film and it stands on its own. All the knowledge it relies on can be traced to the source material in the comics. There’s no Tobey version of Spidey in the film.

[HypnoHustler]

Well my Controversial Opinion is that I still prefer the Garfield movies to all the other ones.

Now THAT is controversial!

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Some have argued that animation is the natural medium for superheroes. As Brian Michael Bendis pointed out, it's a fact that thanks to CGI and so on, most "live-action" superhero movies are in fact semi-animated anyway.



The creators of ITSV were a team of producers/directors/writers generally overseen by Phil Lord, Chris Miller, Ramsay, Docter, and the ever-controversial Amy Pascal. So it's got less studio interference by virtue of being overseen directly by producers.



Sam Raimi largely had a free reign on his trilogy of films, not as free as Tim Burton on BATMAN RETURNS (which is the reason why no director really has free reign on these genre movies anymore) but far more so than Webb and Watts anyway.

Certainly Raimi didn't have a committee pre-viz his movies the way Watts had on his MCU stuff (as do all MCU movies which aren't really directed).



I think it's interesting that tastes have changed so much, that we now consider attacking live-action for not being like animation to be "unfair" when at the time, animation was seen as lesser than live-action. I think that if Timm and Co. on their lower-budget made a movie that was as good as the best live-action Batman films (Batman Returns, The Dark Knight) and better than others, that's a credit to him and a knock on live-action stuff.

I always considered animation to be the natural medium for superheroes too (tied with maybe comics, but comics are similar to animation anyway :P). Most of us here born in between the 80s and mid 90s probably got into superheroes through the cartoons that came out in the 90s and 2000s (moreso on DC's side than Marvel, but still). Maybe it's my generational bias but I often feel like the kids growing up in the 2010's almost missed out on superheroes in a way due to the lack of good superhero animation for them to be exposed to. I feel this way even in spite of the live-action boom that superheroes in the 2010's had. Again this could just be my inner old man talking and not understanding new trends.

Raimi definitely had more creative control than Webb and Watts, but what I meant is that ITSV was unique in the amount of creative control it had because Sony was never looking to make big live-action numbers with it, so they let their creative crew get away with even more than they let Raimi get away with. Even the idea of the film focusing on Miles came from the three directors and not from Sony, as did the idea to base it on Spider-Verse. It's a pet project in a way that even the first two Raimi films weren't.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I guess this isn’t a good time to mention that I think the Richard Donner Superman films are overrated too, eh.

Totally agree on this.

The Fleischer Bros. Superman shorts in the 1940s is the best Superman has been on the big screen.

I always considered animation to be the natural medium for superheroes too (tied with maybe comics, but comics are similar to animation anyway :P).

I also feel that animation is the medium for superheroes. Take the Superman Theatrical Cartoons by the Fleischer Bros. in the 1940s played a huge role in popularizing not only Superman but superheroes. All the stuff people associate with Supes, "up in the sky" "it's a bird it's a plane", even the phone booth quick-change...all of that came from there. Likewise, Superman flew for the first time in those cartoons. In the comics Superman could initially jump really really high (a bit like the Hulk) but the animators felt that didn't look impressive so they made him fly. The Fleischer Superman is the ancestor of ITSV, also BTAS, also Miyazaki and a good chunk of anime. It's a really influential series.

Maybe it's my generational bias but I often feel like the kids growing up in the 2010's almost missed out on superheroes in a way due to the lack of good superhero animation for them to be exposed to.

(wistful nostalgic VO) "we never knew we had it so good". Yeah 90s to early 2000s that was the golden age of superhero TV programming. Maybe someday we'll get there again. I am curious about What IF by the MCU which is animation.

I feel this way even in spite of the live-action boom that superheroes in the 2010's had. Again this could just be my inner old man talking and not understanding new trends.

I think the live-action superhero boom eroded superhero animation. Superhero Live-action movies tended to be realistic or grounded. Like go back to the Christopher Reeve Superman...he has superpowers but Luthor is a human villain, the movies kept stuff to a baseline that avoided Superman's more creative enemies like Brainiac or Mxyzsptlk. Then Nolan movies had Ra's Al Ghul be this title rather than man who takes spa trips to the Lazarus pits. Then the MCU comes along, and suddenly you have actual Norse Mythology co-existing in a world with B-Movie Nazi types in Cap. America 1, alongside Iron Man, and then you had Guardians with the Talking Raccoon, and thanks to the development of CGI (which means that all MCU movies are technically animated movies to some or great extent).

That kind of took away the appeal of the superhero animated series. The understanding used to be that the movies would be a standalone snapshot the equivalent to the one-shot graphic novel or prestige maxiseries while the animated series was the monthly ongoing. So Tim Burton's Batman and BATMAN RETURNS would play for keeps and take the characters to really dark areas while Bruce Timm and Co. would bring in and update Robin, the Scarecrow, introduce Ra's al Ghul on-screen for the first time, and touch on the expanded Batman mythos. Then along comes the MCU and the MCU wants to mimic as much as possible the monthly ongoing comic. Thanks to the MCU every movie and every show is telling the ongoing story of a continuity, so right now with Disney+ you are looking at back to back weeks of WandaVision followed by Falcon and Snowman, followed by What If, followed by Loki and eventually maybe Black Widow and Eternals and beyond. IF you are Kevin Feige and someone pitches an animated series, you would think "I'd rather do that in live-action/I am doing that in live-action".

ITSV definitely was the shot in the arm, it made a creative case for animation as an artistic form of expression. And generally speaking, I always did feel that animation was a medium with a lot of untapped potential.

Raimi definitely had more creative control than Webb and Watts, but what I meant is that ITSV was unique in the amount of creative control it had because Sony was never looking to make big live-action numbers with it, so they let their creative crew get away with even more than they let Raimi get away with. Even the idea of the film focusing on Miles came from the three directors and not from Sony, as did the idea to base it on Spider-Verse. It's a pet project in a way that even the first two Raimi films weren't.

Animation because of how it's made means that you don't have to deal with production logistics in terms of shooting, in terms of actor salaries and casting, in terms of other stuff. Everything has to be agreed on and pre-approved from the get-go and you can't come and swoop in at the end and remove the director/force him to do reshoots and so on. Obviously there are disagreements and issues behind the scene in animation too, but the nature of the production means temperatures tend to be cooler at the outset.

[Kevinroc]

Well my Controversial Opinion is that I still prefer the Garfield movies to all the other ones.

Those movies are absolute garbage. Any Spider-Man movie that focuses on the mystery of Richard Parker was clearly made by people who didn't get Spider-Man at all.

What’s your proof of this?

Let's start with the fact that the MCU Spider-Man movies haven't so much as said the words "Uncle Ben".

I guess this isn’t a good time to mention that I think the Richard Donner Superman films are overrated too, eh.

The Donner Superman movies have defined that character for audiences for generations. Whether that's a good thing or not in 2021 is a different question.

Total baloney. It’s a brilliant film and it stands on its own. All the knowledge it relies on can be traced to the source material in the comics. There’s no Tobey version of Spidey in the film.

This kiss exists because of Raimi. He knew what he was doing.

[HypnoHustler]

Those movies are absolute garbage. Any Spider-Man movie that focuses on the mystery of Richard Parker was clearly made by people who didn't get Spider-Man at all.

I’m... not sure you understand the concept of a “controversial opinion thread.” You’re attacking someone for espousing a controversial opinion... when that’s the whole point of this thread! I admire his independence for liking something that most other people hate. At least he doesn’t just go along with the boring “Raimi good, Webb bad” crowd.

Let's start with the fact that the MCU Spider-Man movies haven't so much as said the words "Uncle Ben".

That’s just them not wanting to retread ground covered in TWO different Spider-Man movies. Totally reasonable that they don’t want to bore audiences with Peter’s origin story again, as that was a major criticism of ASM 1. That’s not the same as creative influence though.

The Donner Superman movies have defined that character for audiences for generations. Whether that's a good thing or not in 2021 is a different question.

They were groundbreaking for their time, but seem dated and corny from a modern perspective (hmmn... kinda like the Raimi films). I wouldn’t care to sit through them though.

This kiss exists because of Raimi. He knew what he was doing.

I totally forgot about that scene. Okay, I’ll give you that, but wasn’t that like two seconds of a montage from a 2 hour film? Let’s not make it more than it is.

[Kevinroc]

I’m... not sure you understand the concept of a “controversial opinion thread.” You’re attacking someone for espousing a controversial opinion... when that’s the whole point of this thread! I admire his independence for liking something that most other people hate. At least he doesn’t just go along with the boring “Raimi good, Webb bad” crowd.

The Webb movies were very bad. I don't think the people who made those movies understood Spider-Man and his world. There's my controversial opinion.

That’s just them not wanting to retread ground covered in TWO different Spider-Man movies. Totally reasonable that they don’t want to bore audiences with Peter’s origin story again, as that was a major criticism of ASM 1. That’s not the same as creative influence though.

There's a difference between doing the origin again (which nobody wanted) and actually going out of their way to not even mention Uncle Ben.

They were groundbreaking for their time, but seem dated and corny from a modern perspective (hmmn... kinda like the Raimi films). I wouldn’t care to sit through them though.

They're still the definitive take for modern audiences.

I totally forgot about that scene. Okay, I’ll give you that, but wasn’t that like two seconds of a montage from a 2 hour film? Let’s not make it more than it is.

They used Cliff Robertson's voice from the Raimi Spider-Man movies for Uncle Ben to give the "with great power" line. Spider-Verse invoked the Raimi films as short hand for both Peters backstories because that's what they thought audiences would be familiar with.

[Agent Z]

Doesn't that upset you that those were also the worst Spider-Man movies?

The ASM movies were not perfect but they are by no means the worst Spider-Man movies when Spider-Man 3 still exists.

[Spidey_62]

Let's not forget they invoked the Raimi movies primarilly in Spider-Verse and gave one nod to Homecoming but none to the Amazing movies lol.

I think anybody can absolutely prefer what they prefer and if they feel something's overrated then sure but I don't think it's up for debate that the Raimi movies haven't left that mark on pop culture. MCU Spidey to me doesn't feel like it's left as big an impression because it's a smaller part of the whole pie (and the true center of it always felt like RDJ's Iron Man) whereas Raimi Spidey pretty much got all the major basic Spidey beats you'd want to translate to the audience (the origin, his main love, his main villain, his main job, his main settings, etc, etc) much in the way that Donner's Superman left that impression on people for what Superman is. I think for Batman it might be a little less cut and dry because while Burton's was the first I get the sense that Nolan's left just as big an impression on the zeitgeist.

[Kevinroc]

The ASM movies were not perfect but they are by no means the worst Spider-Man movies when Spider-Man 3 still exists.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 took that crown.

[HypnoHustler]

The Webb movies were very bad. I don't think the people who made those movies understood Spider-Man and his world. There's my controversial opinion.

Lmao... That’s not controversial though. That’s about the most basic mainstream view on those films you can get. The Webb films have very few fans. I am certainly not a fan, but I appreciate when anybody comes forward admitting they like those films, because people always pile on them. Look at you. You can’t even tolerate a little pushback about the Raimi films even in the ‘Controversial Opinion’ thread. If people can’t discuss liking Webb and disliking Raimi in this thread of all places, where can they go?

There's a difference between doing the origin again (which nobody wanted) and actually going out of their way to not even mention Uncle Ben.

You sound triggered by the fact Uncle Ben doesn’t play a big part in the MCU films. Most movie goers couldn’t care less about him though. He’s dead. Everyone knows the ‘great power, great responsibility’ ethos. We don’t need his memory trotted out for cheap drama every 10 minutes.

They're still the definitive take for modern audiences.

Speak for yourself. They’re not for me. And not for many others too.

They used Cliff Robertson's voice from the Raimi Spider-Man movies for Uncle Ben to give the "with great power" line. Spider-Verse invoked the Raimi films as short hand for both Peters backstories because that's what they thought audiences would be familiar with.

The same Cliff Robertson who has been dead for a decade? Okay, if you say so. The point is no version of Peter in Spiderverse is anything like Tobey’s interpretation. The closest one is the blonde guy who dies in the first twenty minutes and if that is supposed to be a callback to those films it can be seen as dismissing that interpretation through that character’s death. But even he isn’t that similar.

This whole back and forth is silly anyway. We get it. You love the Raimi films and will defend them to the ends of the Earth. You have to accept not everyone feels the same way about them, especially in this thread.

[Kevinroc]

Lmao... That’s not controversial though. That’s about the most basic mainstream view on those films. The Webb films have very few fans. I am certainly not a fan, but I appreciate when anybody comes forward admitting they like those films, because people always pile on them. Look at you. You can’t even tolerate a little pushback about the Raimi films even in the ‘Controversial Opinion’ thread. If people can’t discuss liking Webb and disliking Raimi in this thread of all places, where can they go?

I think we could say the same thing about you and the Raimi films.

You sound triggered by the fact Uncle Ben doesn’t play a big part in the MCU films. Most movie goers couldn’t care less about him though. He’s dead. Everyone knows the ‘great power, great responsibility’ ethos. We don’t need his memory trotted out for cheap drama every 10 minutes.

I think the lack of Uncle Ben is an example of how the MCU films have run away from the stuff in the Raimi films to their detriment. It's also a problem with the MCU in general. With rare exception, they don't exactly have a great track record dealing with themes of loss. And that stuff isn't just Spider-Man 101, it's Marvel 101.

Speak for yourself. They’re not for me. And not for many others too.

I think the mere mention of how important and influential the Raimi films are really upsets you. Why?

The same Cliff Robertson who has been dead for a decade? Okay, if you say so. The point is no version of Peter in Spiderverse is anything like Tobey’s interpretation. The closest one is the blonde guy who dies in the first twenty minutes and if that is supposed to be a callback to those films it can be seen as dismissing that interpretation through that character’s death. But even he isn’t that similar.

Those whole back and forth is silly anyway. We get it. You love the Raimi films and will defend them to the ends of the Earth. You have to accept not everyone feels the same way about them, especially in this thread.

I don't think the Raimi movies are perfect at all. I think they've defined Spider-Man for generations of fans (there was a big push to get the Raimi suit into Insomniac's Spider-Man game for a long time until they finally did it). I wanted the MCU films to rise above, but they didn't. They ran away from a lot of the core Spider-Man themes and ideas because the other movies did them.

But your hatred of the Raimi movies is perplexing. Even denying the reality of how much Into the Spider-Verse called back to those films as visual short hand for the Peter Parkers. You should probably take your own advice on this subject.

[HypnoHustler]

I don’t hate the Raimi films. I just think they’re overrated and 1 and 3 are supremely mediocre. I never... and I mean never clash with Raimi fans outside of this thread. Don’t worry, you have tons of safe spaces for your Raimi love. You are the one who started this by initially pushing back on me when I said I didn’t care for them... again in the Controversial Opinion thread. So whether you want to continue this or not is all up to you, kiddo.