Old vs New: The Amazing Spider-Man vs. Spider-Man. Web of battles!

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 13 years ago

   Okay folks, I know the "Amazing Spider-Man" movie isn't coming out until next year, but based on what we do know about it thus far, lets compare it to the old Sam Raimi version to see which you guys will think will end up the better adaptation.  After talking to various people online about this in many forums, I've come to the realization that...I'm not as big of a Spider-Man fan as I thought I was.  No, apparently all those comic books I read as a child, those cartoons that I used to and still watch along with the new ones, and all the mindless research that I did in my free time just to learn about as much as i could about the Spidey reboot, they all don't mean a damn thing.  No, apparently according to most fans that I'm not a true Spider-Man fan at all.  No, they said that ANYONE who liked any of the Raimi movies is not a real spider-man fan, so I guess I never was.  I thought I was, and I used to think that outside of Superman and Ghost Rider, Spidey was my all time favorite comic book character, but since I liked the first two Spider-Man movies, I'm not a real fan.  (sigh)  Oh well.  Life goes on, I guess. 
   
   Sorry, I usually like opening these topics up with some humor, so you'll have to excuse my first paragraph for voicing out how hypocritical some fans are about these things.  Not that I'm condemning comic book fans in general, but most fans in general tend to be hypocritical in nature when you stop to think about it.  I would go further into that, but I don't want to risk offending someone with my observations.   Besides, to quote Jack Nicholson from a "Few Good Men", "You want the truth?  You can't handle the truth."  Yep, fans in general really don't want to know what I have to say, but it's a lot of fun challenging fans of any franchise whether it be "Twilight" to "spider-man", it's fun for me to try to challenge their perspectives on entertainment mediums.  Granted, i'm not always successful, but I do always manage to raise very solid points, and evidence to support everything that i say in these other forums; which pisses off a lot of enraged fans sometimes.  however, that's another story. 
   
   Anyway, to get to the topic at hand, some of you may know there is a reboot of Spider-Man in the works, and there's a huge split by a lot of die hard fans out there.  One group (which I fall into) loved the original Raimi trilogy (or at least, the first two anyway, as part 3 sucked).  Granted, we all know that Raimi took liberties with the franchise, but how is that any different than when Donner did the same damn thing with the first "Superman" movie?  Or how is that different from the time when Christopher Nolan took liberties with Batman?  However, in spite of the differences between the comic book and movies, I still loved them.  Sure, I would never dare compare the first two Spider-Man films to "The Dark Knight" or even "Iron Man", but they were still fairly well made.  Sure, fans can get upset all they want about how hokey and campy the Raimi trilogy was in it's entirety, but most fans fail to understand that Raimi got a lot of his influence from the original Steve Ditko and Stan Lee portrayal in the 1960's.  You know, where camp humor in comics were commercially more acceptable; hence why I didn't mind it in the original Raimi series. 
   
   However, everything that I've researched thus far about the upcoming "Spider-Man" reboot suggests that this is going to be a darker, grittier and more realistic version of Spider-Man.  Meaning, there will be no more organic webshooters, as he'll invent his own compact webshooters just like he did in the comic books.  And, his costume will look like something that a teenager could make out of his grandma's basement versus the one that looked like a Hollywood studio made it instead. Although from watching a documentary on the history channel, many biologists, physicists and other scientists did claim that inventing webshooters (let alone ones that are small enough to fit on your wrist) is next to impossible, and went on record to say that Raimi's organic webshooters is the most plausible scenario for Spidey existing in real life, but fans still claim that the mechanical ones are more realistic.  I'll let you folks be the judge of that. By the way, here's the costume of the new one:
   
   
   
   
   And here's a pic from the raimi movies:
   
   
   
   
   See the difference?  Which one do you like the best? 
   
   To be honest, a part of me is happy to hear that the new Spider-Man movie is going to be darker and grittier, as the version of Spider-Man that i grew up did have a lot of dark story lines; particularly with Venom, which is why I'm still pissed off how he was handled in the third movie, as he was a great villain in the comic books.
   
   But, on the other hand, a part of me is sad because even though Spider-man 3 was bad, it wasn't "Batman & Robin" type awful to where a reboot was the only way to move forward from that travesty.  Plus, it's way too soon to start thinking reboot at this stage in the game.  Then again, this is a business, and I'm sure this is also a move to keep the distribution rights from reverting back to Disney if they don't make so many Spider-Man movies within an x-amount of time so to speak. 
   
   Anyway, what are you're thoughts on this?  Do you think Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies were any good?  Were they faithful to at least the heart of who Spider-Man is?  Do you think the reboot of the franchise is the way to go?  Or do you think they're doing this way too soon?  Do you think Spider-Man should be darker and more realistic?  Or should it still have that comic book feel movie archetype attached to it?  Which is more realistic, organic webshooters or mechanical ones?  Which spidey costume do you prefer?  The allegedly now condemned crappy version that Raimi had in his movies (according to most teenage fans; not me), or do you like the new cheaper looking yet more realistic costume?  And of most of all, which do you think will end up as ultimately the better franchise?  The Amazing Spider-Man?  Or Spider-Man?  The battle of the webheads have begun. 
   
   Take in mind this is all purely for fun, as I'm merely curious to get everyone else's perspective on this.  For those that are like me, and rather reserve judgment until the reboot comes out in 2012, then you're more than welcome to post here after you see it next year.  Seriously, I want to know!  Who do you think is going to be the better web head?  Andrew Garfield?  Or Toby Maguire?  The battle of the web heads have begun!

   replyreport
2. 61

   optimus grimlockposted 13 years ago

   I think Garfield would make a spiderman then andrew garfield!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Well like i said, i'll reserve judgment until next year. it's a shame Topher Grace was miscast as Venom in spider-man 3, as he would've been a perfect casting choice for Spider-Man.  Of course, that's just me.

      replyreport