Controversial Spider-Man Opinions

[JTHM]

To be completely fair, while I agree that Kaine (for example) has absolutely become his own character, I think he is still a character whose origins are impossible to distance from Peter. Kaine is a clone, and that's important to his character, his story and motivations a lot of the time. This doesn't mean that Kaine can show on its own, it just means that he would actually lose if his connection with Peter was completely severed. I don't like Ben Reilly much, but I'm willing to jump in and say the same for him.

[PCN24454]

To be completely fair, while I agree that Kaine (for example) has absolutely become his own character, I think he is still a character whose origins are impossible to distance from Peter. Kaine is a clone, and that's important to his character, his story and motivations a lot of the time. This doesn't mean that Kaine can show on its own, it just means that he would actually lose if his connection with Peter was completely severed. I don't like Ben Reilly much, but I'm willing to jump in and say the same for him.

Considering people's complaints about the Venom movie, it's probably best that they don't sever the connection.

[Kevinroc]

I've changed my mind about the MCU Spider-Man films. They are just average films on their own, but they are bad Spider-Man films. (This doesn't mean I've changed my mind about the Webb/Garfield/Stone "Amazing" films. I still consider those bad in every sense.)

[HypnoHustler]

I've changed my mind about the MCU Spider-Man films. They are just average films on their own, but they are bad Spider-Man films. (This doesn't mean I've changed my mind about the Webb/Garfield/Stone "Amazing" films. I still consider those bad in every sense.)

How's this for controversial? I think the Spidey Raimi trilogy is MASSIVELY overrated by fandom. They're not good films. The dialogue is stiff and wooden and only useful for bad memes. Tobey's Spidey is awful. He moves slow and his quips are cringe. The CGI is pretty dated too, but I guess it's a product of its time so that can't be held too much against it. But overall, I never find myself going back to it, except certain scenes from the second movie like the stellar train sequence. And even that film, while decent, is still overrated with some people even saying it's the best CBM film, which is just ridiculous (maybe it was in 2004, when most CBMs sucked). But the first and third film? Fergeddaboutit. They're almost unwatchable, especially the third one.

Incidentally, I think the Garfield films are terrible too (for different reasons), but that's not controversial.

The MCU films are decent, I think. Not out of this world and definitely not comic accurate, but for me they're the most entertaining representation of Spidey on film thus far.... which isn't saying much.

The best, and only truly GREAT, Spidey film is of course 'Into the Spiderverse.'

[Kevinroc]

How's this for controversial? I think the Spidey Raimi trilogy is MASSIVELY overrated by fandom. They're not good films. The dialogue is stiff and wooden and only useful for bad memes. Tobey's Spidey is awful. He moves slow and his quips are cringe. The CGI is pretty dated too, but I guess it's a product of its time so that can't be held too much against it. But overall, I never find myself going back to it, except certain scenes from the second movie like the stellar train sequence. And even that film, while decent, is still overrated with some people even saying it's the best CBM film, which is just ridiculous (maybe it was in 2004, when most CBMs sucked). But the first and third film? Fergeddaboutit. They're almost unwatchable, especially the third one.

Incidentally, I think the Garfield films are terrible too (for different reasons), but that's not controversial.

The MCU films are decent, I think. Not out of this world and definitely not comic accurate, but for me they're the most entertaining representation of Spidey on film thus far.... which isn't saying much.

The best, and only truly GREAT, Spidey film is of course 'Into the Spiderverse.'

I didn't say anything about the Raimi films, 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. 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.

Amazing strayed too close and too far at once, which is why they did Uncle Ben's death again, and the moments they strayed away were awful (the focus on Richard Parker).

The MCU tried to completely stray, which is why they renamed Ganke to be Peter's friend, the non-Mary Jane MJ (which is the most cowardly thing Marvel Studios has ever done), and Tony Stark as THE influence in Peter's life (to the point that Uncle Ben isn't even name dropped). It sometimes feels like a Spider-Man film in name only with how little like Spider-Man these films are.

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

[Revolutionary_Jack]

How's this for controversial? I think the Spidey Raimi trilogy is MASSIVELY overrated by fandom. They're not good films.

That used to be a lot less controversial a decade back then it is now.

The Spider-Man Trilogy went out of fashion after Spider-Man 3 and people praised the first Garfield movie as better than the Tobey movies, and then the pendulum swung the other way.

My feelings are somewhat similar in that overall I don't think Raimi's movies are a "definitive" take that can't be equalled or anything and there are major flaws that are there from Spider-Man 2 downwards that came out in the open in Spider-Man 3. Where I differ is that I love Spider-Man 1 best and think that's the best live-action Spider-Man movie and a high that Raimi never recaptured. Practically everything that every Spidey movie after got wrong, Spider-Man 1 got right.

I do think Spider-Man 2 is a good movie and I accept that as a sequel and ending to the first movie, but I certainly do think that is overpraised and has severe story and character flaws that hamper it from being the "best Spider-Man film" that everyone blather about.

As for the third film, I think it's a bad film but it's a bad Raimi film so it's still got elements of interest but they don't make up for the flaws of the production, of which I think Raimi is largely to blame.

Incidentally, I think the Garfield films are terrible too (for different reasons), but that's not controversial.

Damn straight.

The best, and only truly GREAT, Spidey film is of course 'Into the Spiderverse.'

Co-signed. This is one of the few things everyone here agrees on.

[Kevinroc]

The Raimi films have defined the character and his world to such a degree that the other films made decisions (for good and for ill) in response to them.

Because Amazing was heavily criticized for doing the origin again, for doing Uncle Ben's death again, the MCU swung so hard in the other direction that they don't even mention Uncle Ben's name. And you can't be the definitive Spider-Man film if you don't even mention Uncle Ben's name.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I do think it's a bit unfair that the live-action films get flack for not being as solid as ITSV. The creators of ITSV had a lot more free reign due to less studio interference and the nature of animation. There is no telling what Raimi/Webb/Watts could have done in the same shoes and vice-versa. It reminds me a bit of how some Batman fans critique the live-actions films for not being as polished as Mask of the Phantasm.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The Raimi films have defined the character and his world to such a degree that the other films made decisions (for good and for ill) in response to them.

True.

Spider-Man 1 is still the highest grossing Spider-Man film in terms of US Domestic Gross, making $400mn (the third film to do so after TITANIC and THE PHANTOM MENACE). Adjusted for inflation that's $629mn. It's domestic gross alone was greater than the worldwide Blade 1 and X-Men 1 combined.

For those who are asking (neither of the Tom Holland movies broke $400mn in 2010s money, leave along $630mn).

So Raimi's movies in terms of impact was a huge f--king deal. It singlehandedly bailed Marvel out and attracted investment capital to their products. There's not a direct line but basically, "No Raimi, no MCU".

You can't compete with that. Garfield and Holland will always be "a" Spider-Man, whereas Tobey Maguire's Peter will have Sean Connery status on that role.


But anyway, as HypnoHustler he does in fact a controversial opinion and that's what this thread is about. It's not about attacking someone for their controversial views.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I do think it's a bit unfair that the live-action films get flack for not being as solid as ITSV.

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 had a lot more free reign due to less studio interference and the nature of animation.

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.

There is no telling what Raimi/Webb/Watts could have done in the same shoes and vice-versa.

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).

It reminds me a bit of how some Batman fans critique the live-actions films for not being as polished as Mask of the Phantasm.

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.

[Frontier]

I still maintain Garfield had the best Spider-Man voice of all the live-action Spider-Men.

Maybe if they actually allowed Holland to quip or have much of a distinct personality in-suit I'd feel differently, but...

[Kevinroc]

I still maintain Garfield had the best Spider-Man voice of all the live-action Spider-Men.

Maybe if they actually allowed Holland to quip or have much of a distinct personality in-suit I'd feel differently, but...

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

[Jman27]

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

Well at least he has a movie

[blackspidey2099]

I’d say that Garfield was the best at capturing Peter/Spidey’s voice, which both Tobey and Holland fail miserably at. Overall though, I think the best live action Spider-Man films are clearly Raimi’s trilogy.

ITSV is just another level altogether. Blond Peter was a better Spider-Man than anything else we’ve seen on screen despite only having like 5 minutes of screentime, and they did Miles better than the actual comics.

[JTHM]

Considering people's complaints about the Venom movie, it's probably best that they don't sever the connection.

Those complaints are mostly fringe, to be fair. I don't really mind that they severed the connection to Spider-Man in the Venom movie, since in the end it worked quite well. Venom is another matter entirely since his whole concept is actually different from Spider-Man and easily separable. Stands to a reason why a lot of people actually dislike Symbiotes since they see them as too separated of Spider-Man's usual rogue gallery of low and weird sci-fi.