Better Trilogy: Raimi's Spider-Man or Nolan's Dark Knight?

[hunnipot85]

Spidey 1 and 2 were great, 3 was god awful though. Batman 1 - 3 were all great IMO.

 

[darthviper107]

Batman is way more fun and entertaining than Spiderman

 

[UltraMarknus]

This is closer than I thought.

 

[DiFabio]

I'm a ****ing obsessed Batman nerd but even I don't think teh "EPIC NOLAN BATMAN TRILOGY" is anywhere near the quality of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films.

The characters are better (nearly every character, even secondary, has a brilliant arc). Arguably more work went into making them. Howard Shore's soundtrack and themes are better. The emotion is more powerful. The messages are more profound and relatable and it doesn't hit you in the head with them obnoxiously. The action is better as well as the effects shots. The actors are of a higher caliber (atleast their performances are in the films). There's literally no comparison, period. Well, other than a very strong opinion or if little people walking great distances for hours on end ain't your thing. If there's one problem I have it's that Return of the King is too grandiose. It's too excessive and too much. That's just a personal issue though that I've never seen anyone comment on.

I've been a Batman fan for almost my entire life, I wasn't interested in LOTR until the films came out but the Lord of the Rings trilogy is much more captivating.

Comparing LOTR to the modern Batman movies is like . . . comparing the same Batman films to the older Spider-Man films. It's silly.

It basically comes down to this,

Considering they are 2 trilogies that try to appeal to an audience in very different ways from eachother I find it hard to choose one. Depends on my mood. If I feel like something more fantastical and light I'd go for the Spiderman films, if I want 'realism' and character studies I'll go for the Batmans.

There you go.

Of course the guy with the Lord of the Rings avatar and sig will be pro LOTR. Of course the dudes with the Nolan Batman avatar and sig and the Spider-Man avatar and sigs will talk and hype it up, that's what they like. On certain days I might say that, "DIE HARD IS TEH BEST", or Star Wars, or Terminator, or Batman, or the ****ing Shawshank Redemption, it just depends on the mood I'm in. Each film we watch, no matter the genre, hopefully caters to a different feeling. Spider-Man and Batman are pretty different animals. The people that are stuck on one single thing (autistically I might add) are the ones I'd watch out for.

I won't be so quick to write off the first two Spider-Man films because they definitely appeal/appealed to me. I watched them a few months ago and they're great, especially Spider-Man 2 (former "BEST SUPERHERO FILM EVAR"). I lean more towards Batman though because he's my favorite comic character, so naturally I'd make the claim that Begins and TDK are better than Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. But the first two Raimi films are hardly crap.

The question is, which "trilogy" is better, and while I hate the trilogy and threequel mentality, I do prefer Nolan's first two entries to Raimi's. But that's just the simple fact that Batman appeals to me more than Spider-Man. I hate both of their third films though. They don't exist to me.


A better question would be, why would anyone vote in message board polls and think that the results are legitimate or that they even matter? Who gives a ****? 20 years from now, people won't give a **** about Raimi Spider-Man or Nolan Batman. I guarantee it.

 

[Adolfo]

The number one reason I chose LOTR is because PJ actually held true to the books(except for those 10 minutes total time in all 3 EE that I loathe)....I still cant complain about Batman( my favorite comic hero and have been reading since just before the late 1960's Neal Adams days)...LOTR is essentially one big story...Batman is a thousand stories...and Nolan's is just one of them told superbly well(except for 3...but it was close though and had some great moments)

 

[thenammagazine]

I'm a ****ing obsessed Batman nerd but even I don't think teh "EPIC NOLAN BATMAN TRILOGY" is anywhere near the quality of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films.

The characters are better (nearly every character, even secondary, has a brilliant arc). Arguably more work went into making them. Howard Shore's soundtrack and themes are better. The emotion is more powerful. The messages are more profound and relatable and it doesn't hit you in the head with them obnoxiously. The action is better as well as the effects shots. The actors are of a higher caliber (atleast their performances are in the films). There's literally no comparison, period. Well, other than a very strong opinion or if little people walking great distances for hours on end ain't your thing. If there's one problem I have it's that Return of the King is too grandiose. It's too excessive and too much. That's just a personal issue though that I've never seen anyone comment on.

I've been a Batman fan for almost my entire life, I wasn't interested in LOTR until the films came out but the Lord of the Rings trilogy is much more captivating.

Comparing LOTR to the modern Batman movies is like . . . comparing the same Batman films to the older Spider-Man films. It's silly.

It basically comes down to this,



There you go.

Of course the guy with the Lord of the Rings avatar and sig will be pro LOTR. Of course the dudes with the Nolan Batman avatar and sig and the Spider-Man avatar and sigs will talk and hype it up, that's what they like. On certain days I might say that, "DIE HARD IS TEH BEST", or Star Wars, or Terminator, or Batman, or the ****ing Shawshank Redemption, it just depends on the mood I'm in. Each film we watch, no matter the genre, hopefully caters to a different feeling. Spider-Man and Batman are pretty different animals. The people that are stuck on one single thing (autistically I might add) are the ones I'd watch out for.

I won't be so quick to write off the first two Spider-Man films because they definitely appeal/appealed to me. I watched them a few months ago and they're great, especially Spider-Man 2 (former "BEST SUPERHERO FILM EVAR"). I lean more towards Batman though because he's my favorite comic character, so naturally I'd make the claim that Begins and TDK are better than Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. But the first two Raimi films are hardly crap.

The question is, which "trilogy" is better, and while I hate the trilogy and threequel mentality, I do prefer Nolan's first two entries to Raimi's. But that's just the simple fact that Batman appeals to me more than Spider-Man. I hate both of their third films though. They don't exist to me.


A better question would be, why would anyone vote in message board polls and think that the results are legitimate or that they even matter? Who gives a ****? 20 years from now, people won't give a **** about Raimi Spider-Man or Nolan Batman. I guarantee it.

Disagree. Though by that time they'll be ratty, skidmarked and full of holes, Void will still be running around in his Nolan Batman Underoos, with the long faded "golden Nolan" pick stapled over the pecker hole.

 

[Niltusk]

Who gives a ****? 20 years from now, people won't give a **** about Raimi Spider-Man or Nolan Batman. I guarantee it.

Very shortsighted. I'm sure ignorant people believed that about Burton's Bat in 89.

 

[thenammagazine]

Very shortsighted. I'm sure ignorant people believed that about Burton's Bat in 89.

Look how many Nolancompoops "despise" it now, because it's the cool thing to do, despite the fact that without Burton or Keaton, there'd be no Nolan Batman.

 

[intothevoid]

Nope great films like the Nolan ones and LOTR ones will stand the test of time

Spider-Man won't

 

[Adolfo]

Look how many Nolancompoops "despise" it now, because it's the cool thing to do, despite the fact that without Burton or Keaton, there'd be no Nolan Batman.

The keaton Batman was good...but not as good as Nolans

 

[DiFabio]

Very shortsighted. I'm sure ignorant people believed that about Burton's Bat in 89.

Nobody gives a **** about the Burton/Keaton Batman except me and maybe like, 2 or 3 people in THE WHOLE WORLD.

 

[Niltusk]

Look how many Nolancompoops "despise" it now, because it's the cool thing to do, despite the fact that without Burton or Keaton, there'd be no Nolan Batman.

That only further proves the point. If they didn't "give a ****" they wouldn't post about it either way.

 

[Adolfo]

Nobody gives a **** about the Burton/Keaton Batman except me and maybe like, 2 or 3 people in THE WHOLE WORLD.

youre wrong dude

 

[DiFabio]

And Adolfo.

 

[intothevoid]

I think 89 Batman holds up ok even now - I don't despise it never have

Liked it a lot yea. I've just never loved it.

 

[Adolfo]

What I didnt like about the 89 series is the campiness...Its like they threw in some 66 batman...I prefer a more serious film...otherwise I liked it

 

[K07]

I've been a Batman fan for almost my entire life, I wasn't interested in LOTR until the films came out

And this is why I voted Nolan's Batman films. I like Batman better than Middle Earth

I do think LotR is an awesome film trilogy. Well made. Exceptionally well made. And deserving of all the Academy Awards it got. But when it comes down to popping in a movie to watch and rewatch, I'm probably going with Batman.

Wait... This is the Spidey vs Batman topic. Batman. All the way. It's not contest. SM3 is one of the worst comicbook movies ever made. TDKR may have been a letdown, but it was nowhere near as stupid as SM3.

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

It's not a "which is your favorite" thread though. It's a "which is the better film/trilogy" thread.

 

[crows]

Look how many Nolancompoops "despise" it now, because it's the cool thing to do, despite the fact that without Burton or Keaton, there'd be no Nolan Batman.

not necessarily. Burton's was the first but that doesn't mean without it there would be no other Batman movies. Someone was bound to make a Batman movie at one point or the other. I mean I am saying if Burton never made Batman at all they would have just made it with someone else.
Buton and Nolan's batman also have nothing in common besides batman himself so I don't get this post.

I'm thinking without Burton's batman we would have never gotten Batman and Robin maybe, the whole reason for getting Schumacher was because Burton went too dark with the second one.
Maybe if he was never near Batman they could have made different movies that were not as dark and maybe Schumacher would have never been called. Who knows.

but to say that without Burton or Keaton, there'd be no Nolan Batman makes no sense really. how are they connected?

 

[intothevoid]

not necessarily. Burton's was the first but that doesn't mean without it there would be no other Batman movies. Someone was bound to make a Batman movie at one point or the other. I mean I am saying if Burton never made Batman at all they would have just made it with someone else.
Buton and Nolan's batman also have nothing in common besides batman himself so I don't get this post.

I'm thinking without Burton's batman we would have never gotten Batman and Robin maybe, the whole reason for getting Schumacher was because Burton went too dark with the second one.
Maybe if he was never near Batman they could have made different movies that were not as dark and maybe Schumacher would have never been called. Who knows.

but to say that without Burton or Keaton, there'd be no Nolan Batman makes no sense really. how are they connected?

Well the connection is there in what you just said

Just like how without Burton Batman there would have been no B&R, the same way without B&R there would be no Nolan bats, at least not in the shape and form we got it

B&R went so far off course that they needed someone to come in and reboot with a completely different vision


Sure if Burton Batman never happened I agree someone would have eventually come along and made a batman film, but it wouldn't necessarily have been Nolan, could have been anyone