Spider-Man or Batman?

[TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009]

Which films do you prefer the first two Spider-Man films or Batman Begins and The Dark Knight? I prefer Batman Begins & The Dark Knight because I think the Nolanverse has a higher level of quality than Sam Raimi's Spider-Man...Because in the movies Spider-Man hardly ever did any wisecracking and that's a character trait that never made the transition from comic book to film. Spidey is suppose to be a teenage super hero who's always making wisecracks.

[Vidocq]

Not the best place to make an Spidey vs Bats thread, kind of bias. But still I can honesytly say regardless of my dislike for Spiderman in Comics (The Guy Just NEVER SHUTS UP! it annoys me) I liked Spiderman 1 and 2 Not as much as Iron Man or the Hulks but still I liked them. However There is no comparison, Nolanverse all the way. Specially since Nolan never screwed up (or atleast he hasn't) like Raimi did in Spiderman 3.

[Alan2099]

I found Spider-man and all his characters a lot closer to what they were supposed to be than Nolan's version of Mr. Zsasz, Ra's, and Joker where to who they were supposed to be.

I don't recall Spidey ever doing anything completley stupid and against character like Batman did when he went smashing up every police car that got in his way in his little bat-tank.

As a character, I thought Spidey figured out who and what he was supposed to be alot more organically than Bruce did, where it seemed everybody had to explain everything to him.

Spidey's New York felt alot more intresting than Batman's Gotham (which sounds odd even to me, but it was.)

I coudl go on and on, I just don't feel than the Nolan batman movies had anything going for them that the Raimi Spider-man movies didn't top.

[TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009]

Especially since Nolan never screwed up (or at least he hasn't) like Raimi did in Spiderman 3.

Avi Arad kind of screwed over Spider-Man 3 the same way Alexander Salkind screwed over Superman II...but I guess it's partly Sam Raimi's fault too. Because Raimi just couldn't go with the flow could he? The studio wanted Venom and Raimi wanted Sandman but instead of going with one or the other they came to comprise and used both of them. Raimi just had to have Sandman in his third movie didn't he?

[TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009]

I found Spider-man and all his characters a lot closer to what they were supposed to be than Nolan's version of Mr. Zsasz, Ra's, and Joker where to who they were supposed to be.

I don't recall Spidey ever doing anything completley stupid and against character like Batman did when he went smashing up every police car that got in his way in his little bat-tank.

As a character, I thought Spidey figured out who and what he was supposed to be alot more organically than Bruce did, where it seemed everybody had to explain everything to him.

Spidey's New York felt alot more intresting than Batman's Gotham (which sounds odd even to me, but it was.)

I could go on and on, I just don't feel than the Nolan batman movies had anything going for them that the Raimi Spider-man movies didn't top.

I said it before and I'll say it again Sam Raimi's Spider-Man didn't do enough wisecracking and that's a character trait but it never made the transition from comic books to film. At least Chris Nolan's Batman was a playboy like he is in the comics.

[Ms. M]

I think as movie series, their quality is roughly equal (very good first movies followed by truly excellent second ones). Which one you like best probably depends on which character you prefer and I definitely prefer Batman, but the first two Spiderman movies were enjoyable.

Fingers crossed that Nolan can avoid the dreaded curse of the third movie that has struck every major superhero franchise so far.

[Alan2099]

Sadly, Nolan's Batman wasn't a detective, couldn't do a scary or even tough sounding voice, and had to have everybody explain to him everything he needed to know about being Batman.

On that note, Joker wasn't exactly a joker either. Anarchist and chaos bringer, yes. Sick Muther F--er, sure. Guy that looked even remotely like he was havign a good time and enjoyed jokes, no.

Ra's was a pretty crappy imortal too.

[matthewaos]

I love spider-man, and he is my favorite hero for many reasons, but the movies were crap. The Batman movies were real movies, that anyone can enjoy AND appreciate.

[mr. december]

I thought Spiderman I and II were both good, but they were basically the same movie.

-Peter meets an ambitious scientist and they become friends.
-The ambitious scientist screws up a dangerous experiment and goes insane.
-The scientist finds a reason to hate Spidey.
-Peter and the scientist fight.
-Peter wins.
-Mary Jane has breasts.

Spiderman III pissed me off. We waited how long to see Venom on screen? How many years? And then he gets like 15 minutes of screen time. 15 minutes of bad screen time.

The Bat series wins. (So far.)

[Jim Thompson]

Batman -- easily. The Spider-Man movies aren't bad, but I don't think they are anywhere close to what the new batman movies are.

[TheAmazingSpidey]

The Batman movies are better, but I like the Spider-Man ones more. I love BB and TDK, I just like the Spidey ones more, because...well, duh. That should be obvious. :tongue:

For me, Batman always comes in second to Spidey. :smile:

[carabas]

On that note, Joker wasn't exactly a joker either. Anarchist and chaos bringer, yes. Sick Muther F--er, sure. Guy that looked even remotely like he was havign a good time and enjoyed jokes, no.He had a more subdued style, but he was very funny. And he acted like he was exctatic, kid-let-loose-in-candy store delirious even.

But it was a darker funny than usual. Then again, comics Joker isn't terribly funny either most of the time.

[Alan2099]

He had a more subdued style, but he was very funny. And he acted like he was exctatic, kid-let-loose-in-candy store delirious even.
You and me must have seen very different movies.

[Damiean Dark]

BB and TDK where better made in terms of technical accomplishment but Spiderman, and especially spidey 2, where far better enjoyable movies imo.

Joker was strange on one hand it was dark and intelligent on the other he was far to ordered despite him saying he has no plan Ledger did a great interpretation but a grungy terrorist isnt my idea of joker he should look more light to batmans dark, (though on the inside these roles are reversed) ledgers joker fit far to easily into Nolans world he should have been a stark contrast to it. the odd style and mannerisms are great acting but the more i think about it the more i do not associate that style with joker i always see him as more of a upper class air in voice and mannerism.

I know ledgers take is based on early joker appearances but imo it was later down the years (late 70s onward) when the character actually got interesting the comic way of killing (hand buzzers ect) and no reasons given to do so.

[Vidocq]

Sadly, Nolan's Batman wasn't a detective, couldn't do a scary or even tough sounding voice, and had to have everybody explain to him everything he needed to know about being Batman.

On that note, Joker wasn't exactly a joker either. Anarchist and chaos bringer, yes. Sick Muther F--er, sure. Guy that looked even remotely like he was havign a good time and enjoyed jokes, no.

Ra's was a pretty crappy imortal too.

I agree almost completely. Batman in TDK was a Detective Not World's greatest detective but he is only starting not so in Batman Begins, Which was my biggest biff with that movie besides Batman killing Ra's who not even was an Immortal. The Joker seemed like the Joker but not comic book Joker more like one of it's own like an elseworld Joker and that's fine with me.

Still as movies Batman Begins is better than Spider Man
and TDK is better than Spiderman 2. But I may be bias since I've never liked Comic book Spiderman (WHO NEVER SHUTS THE FU[K UP!).

[TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009]

BB and TDK where better made in terms of technical accomplishment but Spiderman, and especially Spidey 2, where far better enjoyable movies imo.

Well like somebody else said Spider-Man 1 & 2 were pretty much the same movie and nobody likes it when actors or directors repeat themselves.

I thought Spiderman I and II were both good, but they were basically the same movie.

-Peter meets an ambitious scientist and they become friends.
-The ambitious scientist screws up a dangerous experiment and goes insane.
-The scientist finds a reason to hate Spidey.
-Peter and the scientist fight.
-Peter wins.
-Mary Jane has breasts.

Chris Nolan hasn't repeated himself with his Batman films....yet.

[mr. december]

I'm a little nervous that Nolan will repeat himself with the third Batman movie. It seems like it'd be hard to top Dark Knight, not necessarily in terms of quality, but in complexity and definitely hype.

[Pól Rua]

I preferred the Spider-Man films because they didn't feel a need to apologize for and justify being superhero movies.

[Alan2099]

I preferred the Spider-Man films because they didn't feel a need to apologize for and justify being superhero movies.

Is it just me, or did Batman feel completley out of place every time he showed up in costume in Dark Knight? It seemed like they were going for this hyper drama ultra realistic crime movie ... then a guy in a cape and mask shows up.

[TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009]

I'm a little nervous that Nolan will repeat himself with the third Batman movie. It seems like it'd be hard to top Dark Knight, not necessarily in terms of quality, but in complexity and definitely hype.

There's no guarantee Chris Nolan will do a third film because he's not contracted to do three films.

I preferred the Spider-Man films because they didn't feel a need to apologize for and justify being superhero movies.

First of all Batman is not a superhero because he does not have superpowers.

Is it just me, or did Batman feel completley out of place every time he showed up in costume in Dark Knight? It seemed like they were going for this hyper drama ultra realistic crime movie ... then a guy in a cape and mask shows up.

It's called verisimilitude and Superman: The Movie had plenty of verisimilitude...I don't see what's wrong with having verisimilitude in a comic book film.

[Alan2099]

First of all Batman is not a superhero because he does not have superpowers.
Just keep telling yourself that. The rest of us will be over this-a-way laughing at you.

It's called verisimilitude and Superman: The Movie had plenty of verisimilitude...I don't see what's wrong with having verisimilitude in a comic book film.
I don't care if it's called zyzzybalubah. When your main character doesn't fit into the movie, that's a sure sign something something is wrong with it.

[TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009]

Just keep telling yourself that. The rest of us will be over this-a-way laughing at you.

I don't care if it's called zyzzybalubah. When your main character doesn't fit into the movie, that's a sure sign something something is wrong with it.

Superman is a superhero because he has superpowers...He's not called "Superman" because he's a super guy. What makes Batman a superhero? He's not faster than a speeding bullet, he's not more powerful than a locomotive and he can't leap tall buildings in a single bound. He's just a normal guy.

What the hell does "zyzzybalubah" mean? It sounds like gibberish. If Spider-Man, X-Men, The Punisher and the Fantastic Four can inhabit a real world city like New York why can't Batman inhabit a real world city like Chicago?

[mr. december]

A superhero inspires confidence and awe in the population. People look up to heroes like Superman and Flash.

Batman's aim is to inspire fear and superstition. He's a vigilante.

So I agree that he's not a suphero, but he's far from a "normal guy."

[TheAmazingSpidey]

First of all Batman is not a superhero because he does not have superpowers.

Oh, God. This again? Always this.

[Damiean Dark]

Is it just me, or did Batman feel completley out of place every time he showed up in costume in Dark Knight? It seemed like they were going for this hyper drama ultra realistic crime movie ... then a guy in a cape and mask shows up.

EXACTLY!!! TDK doesnt really FEEL like a real batfilm somehow the concrete jungle of gotham, the grungy terrorist joker the batman motif is rarely seen its not like batman is almost a mythical force of nature like the batman in Burtons movies or the last halve of BB. Batman sometimes feels an afterthought to everything else in the movie it just didnt feel right but it was still a really good film though.

[Damiean Dark]

It's called verisimilitude and Superman: The Movie had plenty of verisimilitude...I don't see what's wrong with having verisimilitude in a comic book film.

As in the feel of real? (i admit i looked it up:biggrin: ) the effort to appear real is TDK worst aspect because it fails completely to do so is the story so complex or just slightly more then the norm for a movie of its type?, a tank that flies across buildings, batman lifting a falling man at speed with one hand, unrealistic pretentiuos dialouge, i want a comic book movie period superman had a good balance but BB and MUCH more TDK F***** up the balance of real and fantasy which i dont think was the way to go anyway.

[theNighteye]

The two Batman films. They where darker and more realistic to me. Spiderman 1 and 2 are really good but they are too light hearted and don't require much brain mass to watch. Batman films are a little more complex and i like that.

[Alan2099]

Superman is a superhero because he has superpowers...He's not called "Superman" because he's a super guy. What makes Batman a superhero? He's not faster than a speeding bullet, he's not more powerful than a locomotive and he can't leap tall buildings in a single bound. He's just a normal guy.
If you consider Batman a normal guy, there's not much hope for you to begin with.

What the hell does "zyzzybalubah" mean? It sounds like gibberish.
First, it doesn't matter what it means. That wasn't the point. You seem to be good at completley missing the point of things, but if you really must know, it's a character from PeeWee Herman.

If Spider-Man, X-Men, The Punisher and the Fantastic Four can inhabit a real world city like New York why can't Batman inhabit a real world city like Chicago?
Spider-man, Punisher, and Fantastic Four all had settings that their heores fit into. In Spider-mans' case, they made sure to include as many real but strange and unusual building as possible. With the Fantastic Four, they the city was bright and huge and fit the bigger than life characters. Punisher is a character depicted as even more realistic than Batman, so he was given a sleezy realistic setting. Batman ... Batman feels out of place in his setting. The city is too realistic to fit a larger than life character like himself.

[TeamED209]

Spider-man, Punisher, and Fantastic Four all had settings that their heores fit into. In Spider-mans' case, they made sure to include as many real but strange and unusual building as possible. With the Fantastic Four, they the city was bright and huge and fit the bigger than life characters. Punisher is a character depicted as even more realistic than Batman, so he was given a sleezy realistic setting. Batman ... Batman feels out of place in his setting. The city is too realistic to fit a larger than life character like himself.


I disagree with you, I thought batman fitted into the film city quite nicely and that might be because gotham looked pretty much the same as it did in the comics for me especially in BB,

Overall i think BB and TDKR were very different from spiderman 1/2 and i enjoyed both very much, but i just feel like spiderman will be forgotten where as the batman films are already legend...I'd also rate the batman films as the better movies...

[Pól Rua]

First of all Batman is not a superhero because he does not have superpowers.
Uh. No.
Thanks for playing.

It's called verisimilitude and Superman: The Movie had plenty of verisimilitude...I don't see what's wrong with having verisimilitude in a comic book film.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
There is NOTHING wrong with having verisimilitude in your film, which was exactly my point. However, the Batman films weren't going for verisimilitude, they were going for 'realism'.
A goal which is undermined by the guy in the rubber bat suit flying on the exploding steam pipes.

[Pól Rua]

It sounds like gibberish. If Spider-Man, X-Men, The Punisher and the Fantastic Four can inhabit a real world city like New York why can't Batman inhabit a real world city like Chicago?
What the hell does this have to do with ANYTHING?

[Pól Rua]

Okie doke. Spider-Man I, I liked. It established the characters and their relationship, build a solid, coherent story and told a story well.

Spider-Man 2, I felt was an over-edited mess which consisted of a bunch of neat scenes thrown in random order at a wall.

Batman Begins, I felt was an overproduced pile of dreck about a spoiled rich kid who can't get over his parents' death and alternates between whining about not being able to make decisions for himself and cooing over his next high-tech toy.

Dark Knight, I felt was a pretentious pile of twaddle which I could've forgiven if it hadn't stopped every ten minutes to catch me up on the 'complex underlying themes'.

[lboinyamouf4sho]

i loved all 4 movies, favor the spidey movies because they were more enjoyable to watch as a family.

from reading the posts i'm amazed some of you actually like spidey or batman comic books.

[the goddamn batman]

from reading the posts i'm amazed some of you actually like spidey or batman comic books.

...'like' is such a strong word.

[Kaos]

Batman

Spidey just wasnt Spidey without the wisecracking

(That said Batman did some ridiculous out of character shit and property destruction. Not feeling the lack of detective-ness either)

[bookguy]

Nolan and Bale HAD DAMN well do the third movie.

OR Leder will come back to haunt them!!!

:evilsmile:

[Mia]

Okie doke. Spider-Man I, I liked. It established the characters and their relationship, build a solid, coherent story and told a story well.

Spider-Man 2, I felt was an over-edited mess which consisted of a bunch of neat scenes thrown in random order at a wall.

Batman Begins, I felt was an overproduced pile of dreck about a spoiled rich kid who can't get over his parents' death and alternates between whining about not being able to make decisions for himself and cooing over his next high-tech toy.

Dark Knight, I felt was a pretentious pile of twaddle which I could've forgiven if it hadn't stopped every ten minutes to catch me up on the 'complex underlying themes'.

What he said and then some....though I must say that I like and still enjoy BB.

[jesse_custer]

Both of the series are incredibly overrated, but I would go with the Batman films.

[Agent Helix]

Why choose at all? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1YJbCftjBI)

[TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009]

Uh. No.
Thanks for playing.


You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
There is NOTHING wrong with having verisimilitude in your film, which was exactly my point. However, the Batman films weren't going for verisimilitude, they were going for 'realism'.
A goal which is undermined by the guy in the rubber bat suit flying on the exploding steam pipes.

When I say "normal" that means Batman is human, he can be injured or killed. Most superheroes are not as vulnerable as Batman and that's the point I'm trying to make.

I know what verisimilitude means Rua it means "Something that has the appearance or quality of being true or real." Batman 1989 doesn't have a quality of appearing true or real because Tim Burton used miniatures way too much and nowadays they look extremely fake.

[Karl O'Neill]

No contest. The dark knight is an absolute masterpeice and batman begins is brillaint.

different movies, The spiderman movies are fun but the real stuff is in the batman movies.

batman is better than spiderman is most mediums. the movie nearly made a bloddy billion dollars lads. come on.

spiderman 3 was awful, i was so so disappointed with that movie. vemon is poorly cast and the make up was dreadful. and the dialogue was poorly written, venom says in the "i like being bad"?

what's that all about?

[TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009]

Batman.

That said Batman did some ridiculous out of character shit and property destruction. Not feeling the lack of detective-ness either.

Yes but as far as live-action films go I think Christopher Nolan's Batman as good as it gets...unless Frank Miller comes out of the woodwork and directs an even better Batman film than what Nolan gave us.

[Black Atom]

This:

I preferred the Spider-Man films because they didn't feel a need to apologize for and justify being superhero movies.

And also this:

Is it just me, or did Batman feel completley out of place every time he showed up in costume in Dark Knight? It seemed like they were going for this hyper drama ultra realistic crime movie ... then a guy in a cape and mask shows up.

There's so much that's unintentionally funny in Nolan's Batman movies because of it's straight-faced realism, like Scarecrow's ridiculous mask, Bale's awful Bat-voice, to Harvey Dent's implausible scarring.

No comparison for me. After seeing both Spidey movies, I instantly wanted to watch them again. Watching Nolan's Batman movies is like watching extended episodes of Law and Order with some guy dressed up in a lame-looking Bat-suit for some fucking reason.

[Pól Rua]

When I say "normal" that means Batman is human, he can be injured or killed. Most superheroes are not as vulnerable as Batman and that's the point I'm trying to make.
Then you should have said that.

I know what verisimilitude means Rua it means "Something that has the appearance or quality of being true or real." Batman 1989 doesn't have a quality of appearing true or real because Tim Burton used miniatures way too much and nowadays they look extremely fake.
No. That IS the dictionary definition, but you're reading it wrong. Verisimilitude is all about making a story internally consistent. Making something 'play by its own rules'.
Batman does NOT have verisimilitude, because it sets itself up as following 'real world' patterns and then introduces a guy in a rubber bat costume, microwave rayguns, and 'flying' on clouds of steam.

I think that the idea of what city a film is set in (Oh, and the Tom Jane Punisher film was set in Florida, so so much for THAT theory...) is irrelevent to the discussion.

By the way, I thought the Burton Batman films were a bunch of self-indulgent rubbish which looked like nothing so much as extended video clips of cool imagery with little or no story holding them together.

[the goddamn batman]

When I say "normal" that means Batman is human, he can be injured or killed.

But you're talking about Spiderman, who can also be injured or killed.

(Oh, and the Tom Jane Punisher film was set in Florida, so so much for THAT theory...)

His point still stands, though. It's set in a real city. It can be obviously Florida if it's set in Florida.

You can't put the Eiffel Tower in every master shot and say it's Star City.


That said, it's really apples and oranges. In general I enjoy Batman as a character more than Spidey, so... but I also find it possible to like the Spiderman Movies.:eek:

[Pól Rua]

His point still stands, though.
He HAS one? I can't make heads or tails of it. Seriously, this isn't me being snarky, but what the hell?

I feel like Jeff Lebowski at the end of the Big Lebowski.
We're talking about whether Batman or Spider-Man was a better film and he pipes up with, "You hate New York City! Why don't you MARRY Tim Burton?"

Seriously, I can't wrap my head around it.

[Pól Rua]

His point still stands, though. It's set in a real city. It can be obviously Florida if it's set in Florida.
You can't put the Eiffel Tower in every master shot and say it's Star City.

Unless you're visibly showing Sydney's Centrepoint Tower in shot after shot of the Dolph Lundgren Punisher and claiming it's New York.

[jesse_custer]

That is either an insult or a Terminator quotation.

[Pól Rua]

Honestly I'm not being passive-aggressive here or trying to stir shit. It's just that I honestly don't understand the flow of this exchange.

It's called verisimilitude and Superman: The Movie had plenty of verisimilitude...I don't see what's wrong with having verisimilitude in a comic book film.

When your main character doesn't fit into the movie, that's a sure sign something something is wrong with it.

If Spider-Man, X-Men, The Punisher and the Fantastic Four can inhabit a real world city like New York why can't Batman inhabit a real world city like Chicago?

The first statement, fair enough. I disagree with his definition of verisimilitude, but fair enough.
The second statement questions that statement and then...

Honestly, what does the city the story is set in have to do with ANYTHING that's gone before in the argument?
I'm genuinely confused.

[jesse_custer]

I think he's saying a real city for Batman would give the film more verisimilitude, but that doesn't make any sense. I think not having a lunatic clown anarchist who can rig a bomb in your mom's panties without anyone ever knowing would give the last film more verisimilitude than a real city.

[Pól Rua]

I think he's saying a real city for Batman would give the film more verisimilitude, but that doesn't make any sense. I think not having a lunatic clown anarchist who can rig a bomb in your mom's panties without anyone ever knowing would give the last film more verisimilitude than a real city.

Oh thanks Jesse. Yeah, honestly, I think we're discussing apples and oranges.
I'm talking about verisimilitude and he's talking about what he thinks verisimilitude means.

[mattx110]

Oh thanks Jesse. Yeah, honestly, I think we're discussing apples and oranges.
I'm talking about verisimilitude and he's talking about what he thinks verisimilitude means.
Dude, you've become a drinking game.

Veris...
::takes a shot::

[the goddamn batman]

Oh cool, I guess my reply got deleted?:confused:

[Pól Rua]

Dude, you've become a drinking game.

Veris...
::takes a shot::

Woohoo! This is going on my resume!

[mattx110]

Oh cool, I guess my reply got deleted?:confused:Sometimes posts get lost. Maybe it got deleted, but if the content wasn't especially rude and pointless, it mighta just gotten lost in the tubes.

Woohoo! This is going on my resume!
Hey, qualifies you to run for President or VP in the US.

[lboinyamouf4sho]

Originally Posted by TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009 View Post
When I say "normal" that means Batman is human, he can be injured or killed. Most superheroes are not as vulnerable as Batman and that's the point I'm trying to make.

Then you should have said that.


i thought what he meant by normal was pretty obvious considering we're talking about comicbook heros here.

[Pól Rua]

i thought what he meant by normal was pretty obvious considering we're talking about comicbook heros here.

Except that he didn't say 'normal'. He said:

First of all Batman is not a superhero because he does not have superpowers.

[lboinyamouf4sho]

Superman is a superhero because he has superpowers...He's not called "Superman" because he's a super guy. What makes Batman a superhero? He's not faster than a speeding bullet, he's not more powerful than a locomotive and he can't leap tall buildings in a single bound. He's just a normal guy.



Except that he didn't say 'normal'. He said:

well he's pretty much right there. hero/vigilante/detective but no "super powers" it's all pretty nitpicky though.

[the goddamn batman]

I like how similar these two threads are.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=227462&page=9

[Damiean Dark]

I remember TMNT he movie of 1990 the new york city scape is one of the best original comic to movie translations i have ever sen in a comic movie Batman just didnt fit his enviroment in any way imo i wanted a gothic nightmare like the comics period what happend to the rooftop dwelling dark knight of the comics?

Supercop batman gets worse every time i see him.

[the goddamn batman]

You know what? Nevermind. You're just not worth the time.