Spiderman better than Batman?

[BeyondGotham]

From Netscape:

2) Batman; Batman Returns; Batman Forever; Batman and Robin

The irony of the Batman films is that one of the best superheroes of all time wound up with the worst film series. The first two movies are dragged down by Tim Burton's focus on set design and atmosphere over action, as well as regrettable casting. Never mind Jack Nicholson's marquee appeal as the Joker; the fact is, having a multi-million dollar film build up to a fight between a young, fit protagonist and an old, portly man in a purple suit is a fatal error. As for the other two Schumacher-directed films, it's hard to think of a worse director for this (or, for that matter, any) material, as he camps the movies up to the point where they might as well be ice-show musicals.

For more and to vote for your fav go to:
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/movies/package.jsp?name=movies/content/superhero

[Andrew T. Hingson]

Batman the Movie was great. "Returns" was also good. The other two... were awful. Spider-Man was a campy and great movie. I have high hopes for a good sequel (at least 1).

[Patrick Bateman]

Yes and no. Spider-Man was a better comic book film, but Batman was an all around better film.

[Jedigreedo]

"Batman" was sweeet, Batman Returns was sweet, Batman Forever/& Robin killed it though. Know why Spidey's better than the Bat films? Cause WB is full of power hungry execs, well so is Sony but they actually want to enjoy the film themselves too.

WB: "If we make a Bat film they'll eat it up!"
Sony: "If we make a good Spider-man film they'll eat it up!"

See the difference? ;)

[Mynd Hed]

That's a tough call, actually, because I like X-Men better than either of them. (-:

[Stu]

Spider-Man whoops all of the Bat-films asses IMO. Being that I am a bigger Spidey fans than Bats I think I'll go through why

Batman - While it wasn't camp, the main character was a bit of a joke IMO. Here we had a character, who supposedly had trained all around the world, developing his skills, and he got shot within 10 seconds of being on a screen. I'm not impressed by a guy in a bullet proof suit.
Vicki Vale was an ever irritating love interest, who didn't really serve much purpose in the film at all, other than to connect Batman and The Joker, which could have been done by, you know, him (Batman) trying to save the city from the villian (The Joker). This film hasn't aged too well, and the sets looked cheap IMO. However, the score is one of the best EVER

Batman Returns - Superior in every way to the first one, except the score. Batman looked better, was written better and had better chemistry with Catwoman which I have yet to see produced again to this level in any film. While it suffered from lack of screen time for most characters, oddly enough, mainly Batman himself, I still thought this had a better story, script and acting than it is ever given credit for

Batman Forever - Talk about a piss take. The Robin shown here was nothing more than an irritating teenager with an attitude. Batman had nipples (?!) and Two-Face was a poorly written character - he flips his coin once, not until he gets the anwser he wants, because he has 2 minds about everything. I liked The Riddler, and Batman's speech to him at the end was one of the highlights of the film.

Batman and Robin - oh dear.

So, Spider-Man easily in my opinion. Not overly fond of any of the Batfilms except Batman Returns. 'Nuff said

[LazyReaper]

Oh boy. :rolleyes: Do you hear that? That's the sound of a can of 'fanboy' worms just flying all over the place. *sigh*

Batman and Spider-Man are both awesome characters. But Spider-Man's movie topped Batman's first in every single way. There really is not contest. I'm sorry, I'm a Batman Fan too, but I can honestly say that the Batman films are in no comparison better than Spider-man. I'm not being just another fanboy jerk here, but Spider-Man, even with it's campyness, was still a much better directed, casted, and overall better scripted film.

There's no reason as to why Batman can't achieve such great films if it were given the chance to. That's all it needs, really. Some good motivation... and big heafty paycheck :p


-Aximlli-

[Stu]

Oh boy. :rolleyes: Do you hear that? That's the sound of a can of 'fanboy' worms just flying all over the place. *sigh*

Batman and Spider-Man are both awesome characters. But Spider-Man's movie topped Batman's first in every single way. There really is not contest. I'm sorry, I'm a Batman Fan too, but I can honestly say that the Batman films are in no comparison better than Spider-man. I'm not being just another fanboy jerk here, but Spider-Man, even with it's campyness, was still a much better directed, casted, and overall better scripted film.

There's no reason as to why Batman can't achieve such great films if it were given the chance to. That's all it needs, really. Some good motivation... and big heafty paycheck :p


-Aximlli-

Perfect anwser to your question there folks.

[The Guard]

Forget the fact that this website overlooked about half the superhero movies, but it ranked SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV above SPAWN. One wonders if they give a damn about story.


The first two movies are dragged down by Tim Burton's focus on set design and atmosphere over action

God forbid there's more "atmosphere" than action. What this person calls atmosphere, is what the rest of the world knows as "drama".


as well as regrettable casting.

Yet another person who completely misses the point of the Batman films. They weren't the comics. They were never meant to be the comics.


Never mind Jack Nicholson's marquee appeal as the Joker; the fact is, having a multi-million dollar film build up to a fight between a young, fit protagonist and an old, portly man in a purple suit is a fatal error.

Again missing the point. BATMAN wasn't about the climax of the movie. It was about the whole thing. And there was nothing wrong with the ending as far as I can see. Dramatic, tension, a little action. Did they want a hand-to-hand fight with The Joker? Even in the comics, that didn't/doesn't happen much.


As for the other two Schumacher-directed films, it's hard to think of a worse director for this (or, for that matter, any) material, as he camps the movies up to the point where they might as well be ice-show musicals.

BATMAN FOREVER was nothing like an ice show. And Schumacher was a hell of a choice for director, but he was mandated by the studio to lighten up the franchise after the reaction to BATMAN RETURNS.


Batman - While it wasn't camp, the main character was a bit of a joke IMO. Here we had a character, who supposedly had trained all around the world, developing his skills, and he got shot within 10 seconds of being on a screen. I'm not impressed by a guy in a bullet proof suit.

The whole point of that scene was not that Batman was too slow to get shot. It was that his character had an almost supernatural aspect after getting shot and getting up again.

Batman Forever - Talk about a piss take. The Robin shown here was nothing more than an irritating teenager with an attitude.[/quote]


Since when have teenagers been anything else? Robin in BATMAN FOREVER was a young man who's parents and brother had been taken from him, and wanted revenge. By the end of the film, he wanted justice. I didn't see much wrong with his portrayal in a movie with so many characters.

[quote]Batman and Spider-Man are both awesome characters. But Spider-Man's movie topped Batman's first in every single way. There really is not contest. I'm sorry, I'm a Batman Fan too, but I can honestly say that the Batman films are in no comparison better than Spider-man. I'm not being just another fanboy jerk here, but Spider-Man, even with it's campyness, was still a much better directed, casted, and overall better scripted film.

Say what you will about it's faith to the comic books, BATMAN has a level of story and screenwriting that has not been matched, not by SPIDER-MAN, not by X-MEN, not by anything. Yes, SPIDER-MAN was more faithful, had better special effects, and better overall acting. But what it comes down to is story and dialogue, and BATMAN remains the superior film. Heck, SPIDER-MAN itself drew heavily from the story and situations in BATMAN.

[ZorBrak]

I dunno what to comment on here, Gaurd said pretty much what I would...but as much as I liked Spider-man I found it flawed in many fields.
I for one idn't have problems with little changes like organic webbing...that was cool...but...

-Acting. Some of the talent was well...talented...but some of it was way too campy and hurt the mood trying to be set. None of the major actors really. But the people on the bridge in New York throwing things? That was dumb and extremely unnessary. Some scenes like this gave this movie a little too much of a kiddie feel. The corny acting from the woman at the festival-"It's Spider-man!" (smiling no less and looking WAY too cheerful for the fact that people around here are being burned and disintegrated)

-Dialogue. Dafoe is an awesome actor with great level of skill....but his dialogue...just sucked many times...some of his actions were also seemingly lacking in motive. I understand some things are the result of his insanity but some stuff was just dumb to say.

-Pacing. This things pacing was just...odd...many parts of this movie seemed awkward and seemed to be occuring too late or too soon and as a result there was quite a loss in character development.

My conclusion is that this was just a "hollywood" film that wanted to be a comic film. It was indeed a spider-man film, and a good one, but if failed at capturing the feel of a comic (props to Ang Lee and Hulk) instead just coming off as campy in parts.

[Chris Wood]

It was indeed a spider-man film, and a good one, but if failed at capturing the feel of a comic (props to Ang Lee and Hulk) instead just coming off as campy in parts.

Spiderman IS a little campy. This is a guy who spouts one-liners during battles to the death. He's not a super serious character.

[Stu]

Heck, SPIDER-MAN itself drew heavily from the story and situations in BATMAN.

How did you get to that? The Batman franchise is nowhere the current best out there, both X-Men and Blade have proven to have great originals, and supeior sequels. With Spider-Man, I believe that with Dr. Octopus, and Raimi's critisms as far as the first one came about, that they can make a better sequel. Hell, Daredevil, while adoared by some and hated by others, was a superior film to Batman, in that I gave a crap about the characters, it looked better, had a better atmosphere, and far superior fight scenes. Hopefully, Chris Nowlens new Batman film will take note as to where, IMO, they dropped the ball on the first franchise.

[James]

How did you get to that? The Batman franchise is nowhere the current best out there, both X-Men and Blade have proven to have great originals, and supeior sequels. With Spider-Man, I believe that with Dr. Octopus, and Raimi's critisms as far as the first one came about, that they can make a better sequel. Hell, Daredevil, while adoared by some and hated by others, was a superior film to Batman, in that I gave a crap about the characters, it looked better, had a better atmosphere, and far superior fight scenes. Hopefully, Chris Nowlens new Batman film will take note as to where, IMO, they dropped the ball on the first franchise.
But then the Batman movie revolutionised the market and made Superhero films cool once more - something lost since 'Superman' in the 70's. Unlike Spider-Man, it didn't try and remake the comic character - it reinvented him. It took the character and moved into a realistic surrounding.

As for comparing the sequels... lets wait until they are released before doing so... :)

I loved Spider-man, it was however, a little too close to the comic. It was story by the numbers. Batman stands as a film on it's own merits, taking little directly out of the comic aside from premise and aesthetic. Elfman's score fits Batman more that Spidey too IMO.

I love SM, but overall, Batman is the superior film. Atmosphere, originality, dialogue - everything.

[Nightflower]

But then the Batman movie revolutionised the market and made Superhero films cool once more - something lost since 'Superman' in the 70's. Unlike Spider-Man, it didn't try and remake the comic character - it reinvented him. It took the character and moved into a realistic surrounding.

As for comparing the sequels... lets wait until they are released before doing so... :)

I loved Spider-man, it was however, a little too close to the comic. It was story by the numbers. Batman stands as a film on it's own merits, taking little directly out of the comic aside from premise and aesthetic. Elfman's score fits Batman more that Spidey too IMO.

I love SM, but overall, Batman is the superior film. Atmosphere, originality, dialogue - everything.
Feh. More people would complain if Spider-man wasn't close enough to the comic than if it was too close.

[Mike Spartz]

In the film world I would say that Spiderman succeeds Batman as a better comic book film. None of the batman live action films, with the exception of Batman Returns, were really great or even good comic book movies for me.

I never really enjoyed Batman 1 because of two reasons, 1. it came out when I was really young and I wasn't into comics yet, 2. I disliked the Joker (he was not insane enough for me). However, the film did have a wonderful supporting cast and the best film batman Michael Keaton so that was a plus. I also loved the special effects and overall look and feel of the film.

I thought that Batman 3 and even 4 were entertaining popcorn movies for kids but as far as being true to the comic and having a decent script- they were utter crap. Horrid characterization expecially in Batman and Robin and I hated Clooney as Batman! :mad:

The only Batman film that I thought really showed us Batman and his world was Returns. I saw it when I was 7 and this film made me the batman fan that I am today! I loved every second of it back in 1992 and I still love it today. Burton showed that he understood batman characters in this film. His version of the Penguin, while a bit exterme, really holds true to the fact that Ozzy was a freak who was shunned but the world around him. Catwoman was the heart of the film with a career best performance by Michelle Pfeiffer. I loved her sexy and emotional protrayal of the feline it was god-like! My only complaint was that the film focused on the villians more than Batman and that bruce and selinas relationship was not fleshed out well. However its still an excellent movie and, in my opinion, the best live action batman flim to date.

Spiderman the movie really impressed me. I loved it in the theater and I had to see it again. It's really a wonderful movie with a better script tham Batman that really showed us who Peter Parker was. I loved the peter/mj scenes and the special effects were awesome. However, the golbin, in my opinion, was portrayed as a weak character. He was not as sick was he was in the comics and that was a minus. However, Dafoe did a good job with the material he had and I think it turned out good. I also thought that Tobey Maguire was perfectly cast as Pete, unlike in the later batman films with clooney.

So yeah, Better script and better casting made Spiderman the movie better overall that the live action Batman films.

[JohnStewart-GL]

Spider-man was MUCH better if you ask me. Batman was good but the fights were dull and batman wore that unposeable rubber suit. KEATON and Nicholson did great jobs but Keaton was not in good enough shape and did look young enough. Spider-man had an all around great cast. Mcguire was a perfect spider-man. He had the look and the act down. Spider-man was not a flawless movie but its superior to the Bat-films.

[Jedi Knight]

That's a tough call, actually, because I like X-Men better than either of them. (-:

I agree 100%.

And when comparing Spiderman and Batman, shouldn't we include the animated movies? 'Cause if so, then the animated Batman movies wipe the floor with any other comic book movie ever made.

[The Guard]

Acting, pacing and some incredibly stupid character moves and dialogue kept SPIDER-MAN from being the best comic book movie ever. Lines like Spider-Man saying "I was in the neighborhood" right after she's heard it from Peter Parker and her not making the connection. Peter's speech to Mary Jane in the hospital, and her still not being able to make the connection. Lines like "It's you who's out, Gobby! Out of your mind!" I'm aware that Spider-Man is supposed to be "clever", but he's not supposed to sound like a blithering idiot. He had MUCH cooler zingers in the first draft of David Koepp's screenplay.


How did you get to that?

Why do I feel SPIDER-MAN drew from BATMAN? The Nicholson-like performance of Willem Dafoe. The parade. And you can't tell me that the end sequence with The Green Goblin doesn't look quite a bit like BATMAN's catherdral sequence.


The Batman franchise is nowhere the current best out there

Not when you include BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN & ROBIN. But BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS can go head to head with X-MEN and X2 any day as far as dialogue, story and acting go.


Hell, Daredevil, while adored by some and hated by others, was a superior film to Batman, in that I gave a crap about the characters, it looked better, had a better atmosphere, and far superior fight scenes.

I loved DAREDEVIL. But it didn't have NEAR the level of writing and story that BATMAN had. Yes, of course it had better special effects. But it didn't have near the acting that BATMAN did. The atmosphere was good, I'll admit, but the atmosphere in BATMAN fit it just fine. Yes, DAREDEVIL had better fight scenes. You know why? Because after BLADE, "fight scene" became "extended Jet Li-like martial arts sequence". BATMAN's fight scenes were exactly like they were supposed to be. Cool, quick, and efficient.


Batman was good but the fights were dull

Yes, the fights are dull compared to newer movies like BLADE and THE MATRIX, but as far as realistic action scenes go, they're quite good. I'm tired of hearing about the "restrictive rubber suit", because from what I can see, it worked fine.


Keaton was not in good enough shape and did look young enough.

What do you mean by "good enough shape"? Do you mean muscles on muscles? Some people don't have the frame for that. Keaton looked pretty fit to me, in the scenes where he's shirtless. And it wasn't about looking young enough. The Batman in BATMAN was a 35 year old "everyman." And The Joker was an older mob boss. That's how they were conceived and written in the script. So that's who was cast. BATMAN was never supposed to have much resemblance to the comics. So you cannot condemn it for not having any. It was never conceived as a comic book movie, but rather a new version of an old character.

[James]

Feh. More people would complain if Spider-man wasn't close enough to the comic than if it was too close.

Spider-Man was too close. Origins are fine, however almost every bit of it was translated from the comic. I'm not talking about design, I'm referring to story.

Even the final battle was directly taken from the comics. 'The Death Of Gwen Stacy' was adapted for the final 20 minutes or so.

It's a good film, I loved it. But if we're talking about FILMS and not how authentic they are to their source, Batman is better IMO.

As for comments on the suits and fights, I don't think these are fair comparisons. They have to be looked at in relation to their time. There was no way they could have made such a flexible suit as McQuire's in 1989 - and if Batman was made now, the suit would have been a lighter.

Spider-Man owes a lot to Batman. Since Batman, villains are more fleshed out. More real. Compare the useage of Lex in 'Superman' to the Joker in 'Batman' or Osbourne in 'Spider-Man'. The parallel evolution of hero to villain is a part of the Superhero movie and something pioneered by 'Batman'.

The point? In someways, Spider-Man will be better that Batman, as Batman is better in someways to Superman. It's easier to improve on a genre when you have films to work from. Spider-Man owes a great deal to Batman. Both are good films, my personal opinion however leans me towards Batman as the favourite.

[ClockStomper]

Eh, I think people forget "Batman" had campy elements too. While it had a dark mood, most of the situations had a humorous undertone. Remember the musuem bit? The Joker cosmetic products? The scene with Joker dropping money on the streets of gotham to a "Prince" song? Even the violence was funny. The elecrocution, Joker shooting various people (except the the Waynes, of course.) Story problems were abounds, like the Joker bing the killer of the Waynes, some of the more stupid elements of Joker's nefarious plots, some of the more impractical Bat gadgets, ect.

But overall, it was an enjoyable movie. Spider-Man was the same. The problem with the Bat franchise is it deviated too much from the original's tone. "Returns" was bizzare (Penguins with rockets? Catwoman has a metaphysical origin? The Penguin eats raw fish?) It lacked the dark humor to it's violence. The next two were far too campy, and the acting and dialouge sucked. Tommy Lee Jones would have a life sentence if overacting was a crime. And what happened to Billy Dee Wiliams as Harvey Dent? (I once read that Timm planned that Batman 3 would have BDW as Two-Face.)

Spider-Man, I hope, will keep it's same tone in te second movie. although having the same actors and director is never a garuntee. MIB 2 had these same players, but the movie had an awful script.

The Batman franchise can start over again, because it has a great character to work with. I'd hope they'd go back to Batman fighting the common criminal and mobsters, and focus the story on the parellels of Bruce and Jim Gordon.