Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man > The Amazing Spider-Man > Spider-Man 3 > Spider-Man: Homecoming > The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man > The Amazing Spider-Man > Spider-Man 3 > Spider-Man: Homecoming > The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Prove me wrong.

You can't.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nL8hVXSDmNM
youtu.be/8K4kPEBjiZs
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

that's how i rank them. good work.

My ranking is about the same

Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man > Spider-man Homecoming > Spider-Man 3 > The Amazing Spider-Man > The Amazing Spider-Man 2

>Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man > Spider-man Homecoming > Spider-Man 3 > The Amazing Spider-Man > The Amazing Spider-Man 2

This ranking is correct.

I agreed with this one.

Tom Holland is really the best Peter we've had though.

Get out of my head silly user

I seriously don't get the hate for The Amazing Spider-Man. It is a perfectly competent superhero film that I don't think deserves the derision it gets

By sucking Stark's dick all the time? No.

Because like a third of the movie is wasting time showing the same stuff that was done better in a movie that was just ten years old.

Not if you have ever read comics....
No, Tom Holland is not a good Peter if you know comics Pete

Hes a decent white Miles Morales, at best.

You are 100% correct. Nothing comes close to the originals. They capture the the TRUE emotion and psychological part of spiderman like in the comics. Plus the relatable realistic drama.

People dont realise this but 87% Spidermans greats moments happen as an adult.

Didnt mean to reply to that last one.

>People still hating on ASM 2
Read a fucking book people

The Amazing Spider-Man was a 2/10 but The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a -6/10 and therefore a better movie.

>Spider-Man 3 > Spider-Man: Homecoming

I’ll probably read one that doesn’t have a story as boring and convoluted as TASM2

A lot of people seem to forget about Butler ex machina, last minute Venom, emo Pete, retconning Uncle Ben's murder, climax with kidnapped MJ for the third time and the whole Harry/MJ subplot.

>tfw this costume is probably just gathering dust somewhere and will never see the light of day again
Why did the worst movie have to have the best and arguably only good costume?

NOPE

Spider-Man > Spider-Man 2>>>>Spider-Man 3>Homecoming>>>>>>Amazing 1>Amazing 2

Still better than the blandness of "Homecoming".

Agreed. Even worse, some suit probably thinks the nice suit played a hand in the movie being a flop and we'll never see one like it again.

I'd argue ASM 2 is better than Homecoming, but other than that, yeah, completely agree.

>best suit
>just a rehash of Raimi suit

TASM 2 is way better than homecoming. It has its flaws, for sure, but at least Peter acts like Peter and not some sociopath who wants to hang around with the big boys, and they had the balls to kill Gwen, something Marvel would never do.

Nope, the retard didn't even hide his british accent though the movie, shit didn't make any sense.

my rank is
Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man > Spider-Man 3 > Spider-Man:Homecoming > The Amazing Spider-Man > The Amazing Spider-Man 2

...its as if there have been multiple iterations of peter parker r something

It's sad that the best portrayal of Spider-Man is tied to ASM2

>they had the balls to kill Gwen,
To be fair, they had to. Dying is the thing Gwen is known for the most.

Amazing Spider-man > Spider-man: Homecoming > The Amazing Spider-man 2 > Spider-man > Spider-man 2 > Spider-man 3

I'm not even joking, this is the only correct order if we take into account fidelity to the original material, acting, internal coherence and other technical writing and movie making stuff.

Multiple iterations, but most follow the same personality traits. Also, Marvel isn't like DC where there's multiple "main" continuities. It's pretty universally acknowledged that 616 is the main canon.

I'd switch ASM1 with Spider-Man 3 but otherwise mine is about the same

>marketed as a movie about Peter's parents backstory and then have that subplot dropped
>shitty villain
>shitty b plot that didnt go anywhere
>shitty ending

I'm surprised it gets any love at all

That's kinda true. Not with spidey in the MCU we'll never get anything better.
People keep saying "they had to" but they fucking not. They could just not do it, especially with the sucess of Emma Stone's portrayal, the safe move would be keeping her alive.

616 got thousands of rectcons.

people hate it because "it's not in the MCU so it's bad xd"

Tell me exactly why you think that Spider-man 2 is so bad.

>if we take into account fidelity to the original material
Then why is Homecoming so high up on the list?

I love how peter is british in the comics, is best friends with miles morales supporting cast, is bullied by a manlet beaner, got a crush in a black hispter girl, is girly as fuck, wear an iron man suit etc.

user I'm talking about 616 iteself. Over the decades several writers have written Peter in their own way and each new writer brings a new Peter with him whether you notice it or not

Fuck off, Ditko era of Spider-Man has NEVER been retconned. Now, there have been stories that took place during the Ditko era after the fact, but those all still fell in line with Peter's attitude at the time and didn't change a single thing other than expanding his rogues gallery/classmate cast.

Raimi Spider-man is the best Spider-man

Only three people have written 616 teen Peter and two of them were emulating the first one. So yes, teen 616 Peter has always been the same.

I dislike AM1 for being inferior to Spider-man in every way and AM2 for shoving too much needless stuff in it just for the sake of creating a failed cinematic universe.

Mysterio is a treasure that must be protected.

but you liked homecoming, right?

Spider-man movies are weird because Spider-man's got no genre to follow.
Although they are sprinkled with bits from every genre, be it comedy, action, romance, drama, suspense or even horror on individual scenes, we can point out an overall theme.

Raimi's Spider-man is a drama. The main story is about Peter not being able to be Spider-man and maintain his personal life. He wants to get the girl, study, have a carrer, pay his rent, stay in touch with Aunt May and connect with his close friends but fate keeps shitting on his head. That sure is one aspect of Spider-man from the comics they nailed, but the way Raimi portrayed it made Peter seem miserable. This tone drives the movie, that's why emotions are all over the place and the characters don't even act human sometimes, every action scene is followed up by disaster caused by it on Peter's life and that explains the cringey humor that always disparages Peter.

Spider-man: homecoming is an action-comedy (like most Marvel flicks, actually), and we can notice that because it also justifies every character's action and reactions. Every scene that contains drama, action, romance or suspens is played for laughs or interrupted by a joke to ease the tone. With the exception of Peter lifting up the rubble, which is purposely not played for laughs so you feel it's an important scene.

Amazing Spider-man is a romance. Everything revolves around Peter's relationship with Gwen. Even the whole parents being secret Oscorp fugitives gravitates around the consequences on his romantic relationship with Gwen.


These tone shifts reflect the directors, and justify most of the cliche and tropes we can find in these movies too. From the soundtrack to the appearence of the characters, everything fits the tonal difference.

So when it comes to judging which is better, we have to take that into account. Some people like one style over the other, and that weights heavily on their bias over whatever other flaws or qualities the movies have.

>No cinephile super villain gf

I actually haven't watched it yet so I can't say anything about it.

The rubble scene would be great without Downey Jr's voiceover

The problem is the Spider-Man franchise is incompatible with film. With something like a comic you can stretch out stories and add elements of different genres in naturally that keep in pace with the flow of the story, but when you limit it to a movie it just seems like a complete mess, which is why people here liked ASM2. Spider-Man is a better fit for a tv show

Yeah, this one's pretty much right.

Well, maybe switching off TASM and SM3, but that depends entirely in anyone

That's a very interesting analysis, user.

Good job.

>which is why people here liked ASM2

To be honest, ASM2 has it's qualities. Like I said, if you're into romance, you'd tend to like ASM's more than Raimi's failed and Homecoming's inexisting one.

If we judge the movies without studio shenanigans, you'd see that Sony's failed attempt to stablish a cinematic universe actually translates to Spider-man's lore. We know he's got several villains, we know there's a bigger universe, so it can feel like a nod to that.

ASM2 major problem is electro's cringey portrayal, come on.

Want to make a good Spider-Man film? Simple
Take the idea that it's an actual movie, like Raimi's had, not just a vehicle for sequels. Ok? Check
Take the dynamic action and batz that ASM had, check.
Nail the extremely simply premise of what it means to be Spider-Man, that with great power comes great responsibility
Treat the mythos and the villains with respect and focus on them and Spider-Man's story

That's it....Homecoming has the same issue ASM had, it's only reason for existing is being part of a cinematic universe, and it also shares the flaw Raimi's movie had in not treating it as a true blue Spider-Man movie, but just a corny flick that's gonna sell toys

That's about how I'd rank them.

>"The new guy is the bestest one ever"
Who let the newfag in?

>it's only reason for existing is being part of a cinematic universe

And how does that inlfuence the movie quality, exactly?

Dunno, who let you write english, fucker?

You could argue that every suit since the 70's TV show is a rehash

The doc said rub a little cream on your butthurt and it'll go right away.

>And how does that inlfuence the movie quality, exactly?
Because it is unwatchable as a standalone film, it is not good as a standalone film, it is just another gimmick advertisement begging you to watch the next one

Batman and Batman Returns don't matter that they are related, they were made to be stand alone films....you didn't have to see one to get the other, and you can watch either and walk away from it feeling like a story actually concluded

The correct answer.

>Because it is unwatchable as a standalone film
I disagree. Can't you watch them?

>it is not good as a standalone film
I disagree. In fact, all spider-man movies are good movies overall.

>it is just another gimmick advertisement begging you to watch the next one
I disagree. They work as nods to the spider-man lore just fine.

>you didn't have to see one to get the other

Not a signle spider-man franchise needs the other. Actually, newer spider-man movies assume you watched the old ones, but they could just as well assume ou've read the comics too.

>and walk away from it feeling like a story actually concluded
There are these things called character archs and plot points, which define a story. Every Spider-man movies closes their character archs and plot points. They're all stories with conclusions.

>You could argue that every suit since the 70's TV show is a rehash

Except for the fact that the ASM2 suit reused the exact same design details that were unique to the Saimi suit. It was very much a rehash of the Raimi suit, only much more cheaply put together and bad looking.

Pretty accurate. Homecoming was really meh. Its a foundation for something good but just a foundation.

Nothing you just said is correct.

Homecoming only makes sense if you saw Civil War, which only makes sense if you saw every single MCU film prior

>I disagree. Can't you watch them?
It's not an agreement thing, Spider-Man Homecoming is not a standalone film. You /have/ to watch Civil War to understand what's happening. And you have to watch Age of Ultron to understand what's happening in Civil War. And you have to watch Avengers 1 to understand Age of Ultron. And you have to watch Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, Hulk, and Captain America to understand Avengers 1.
>I disagree. In fact, all spider-man movies are good movies overall.
Except for ASM2 and Homecoming.
>I disagree. They work as nods to the spider-man lore just fine.
Homecoming has no nods to the original lore. In fact, they outright do their best to separate themselves from it.
>Not a signle spider-man franchise needs the other. Actually, newer spider-man movies assume you watched the old ones, but they could just as well assume ou've read the comics too.
He's talking specifically about Homecoming. Also, assuming you read the comics is useless when Homcoming shares virtually nothing with its comic book counterpart.
>There are these things called character archs and plot points, which define a story. Every Spider-man movies closes their character archs and plot points. They're all stories with conclusions.
Homecoming does not conclude, it ends setting up Sinister Six. Raimi 1, 2,3, and ASM1 did have a definitive conclusion though.

Why the fuck does everyone think SM2 is the best? Please don't tell me it is the villain.
The Vulture was a much better villain than Doc Cock!

It understood the heart of Spider-Man and managed to show a really damn good portrayal of Peter struggling between his Spider-Man identity and real life, doubting his great responsibility, which is as Spider-Man as something can get. It was human and down to Earth, again, an extremely Spider-Man movie.

Keaton’s acting was better (not to say Molina’s wasn’t fantastic), but Vulture’s reasons for being a villain were fucking stupid and random

Post your favorite Spider-Man scenes.
youtube.com/watch?v=nL8hVXSDmNM

This scene made me like drawing
youtu.be/8K4kPEBjiZs

I loved this entire sequence. I didn't know Peter was into art. Excuse my ignorance, but has it been explicitly stated at any point if Spider-Man can draw in the comics? I believe he designed the costume himself, but has that been referenced at any point in the comics?

Raised webbing and what else?

>Raised webbing and what else?

Also the exact same fabric textures.

apart from the checker web pattern, the god awful Mcfarlane eyes and how poorly it was made, it's the same thing. It was a copout because the ASM1 had such backlash against it. Even though it was bad for it's own reasons, at least the ASM1 suit tried to be different.


And that's why I love the Homecoming suit. It still stuck with the classic Spidey design, but they completely did their own thing with it. Even his home-made janky suit was better than ASM2 suit.

>the god awful Mcfarlane eyes
Go fuck yourself with a goddamn cactus.

Reminder that it was universally acknowledged on this board that the big eyes were superior till this movie came out and /r/Marvel invaded.

Damn, that suit looks so good

Spider-man homecoming costume looks comfy to wear.

Unlike the original suit.

>a bad movie is better than a bland one

Yeah. There's some entertainment to be had in watching a bad movie with friends. There is no entertainment in a bland movie.

>There's some entertainment to be had in watching a bad movie with friends.
irrelevant. my friends and I had fun laughing at the Purge when it came out in theaters, but that doesn't make the movie itself any less terrible.

nothing to disagree with here, the only opinion id make is

Spider-Man 2 = Spider-Man > The Amazing Spider-Man > Spider-Man 3 > Spider-Man: Homecoming > The Amazing Spider-Man 2

the best ranking so far

Not irrelevant at all. When people say a movie is bad you get a whole bunch of retards like me who will get their friends together to see just how bad it is. When a movie is bland no one wants to waste their money. The point of a movie is to entertain and at the end of the day I'd rather watch a bad movie than a bland movie.

wow ur literally me

I really don't understand the anger towards this suit. Now the 2.0 with the gold, now that's some bullshit

Spider-Man=Spider-Man 2>Spider-Man 3>Amazing Spider-Man

Didn't bother to watch ASM2 or Homecoming.

>Shitty black lines all over the place
>Trying to give an explanation for the expressive eyes (either have it in there without addressing it or leave them as static like they are in canon)
>High tech bullshit that Peter should NEVER have
>That shitty fucking spider logo
>Webshooters that don't even try to blend into the costume
>An AI
>Webs on suit look ugly while in motion.

>the god awful Mcfarlane eyes

I meant simply visually, the gadget shit goes without saying.
>Black lines
Oh boo fucking hoo, they barely make a difference.
>Shitty fucking spider logo
Oh you mean the tiny ass chest logo he ALWAYS fucking had? Because the other movie suits had shitty logos that covered the entire chest.
>Web shooters that don't even try to blend with the costume
That I'll give you, they seem rather clunky
>The expressive eyes
Its a neat little addition. I don't really see the problem with it.

>Oh boo fucking hoo, they barely make a difference.
Barley make a difference? It's bullshit tacticool randomly placed on the one character who'd WANT to make his outfit goofy and stand out. It's super big noticeably just sitting there awkwardly.
>Oh you mean the tiny ass chest logo he ALWAYS fucking had? Because the other movie suits had shitty logos that covered the entire chest.
No, how they tried to make the spider look like some weird logo you'd see at a tech convention. Just make it look like a fucking spider, not this hexagonal shit.
>Its a neat little addition. I don't really see the problem with it.
My problem wasn't that they were there, my problem was that they gave an explanation for it. In the comics it's just static and only the readers could see it moving because of toon force. Why? Because it serves no purpose to have his eyes canonically move and the explanation the movie gives just raises more questions.

It’s already been established that the original suit was uncomfortable to wear since it “rides up the crotch a bit.”

>tacticool
Do people even know what this means anymore? Because originally I thought it meant costume designs with a heavy focus on realism. What fucking purpose do the lines serve and how is it tacticool? Also you're being autistic over the logo being a hexagon instead of a fucking circle. Christ sake, we even got the fat tick on the back finally and you peopel still bitch

Yeah, the voiceover was a bad choice

>Do people even know what this means anymore? Because originally I thought it meant costume designs with a heavy focus on realism.
No, tacticool is when they try to make it look "tactical" without any regard for practicality and just want to throw a design on there that makes it look like a part of some military uniform. IE, all these black lines moving up blue parts of the costume. They're only in place to make the outfit look "cool" and "modern".
>Also you're being autistic over the logo being a hexagon instead of a fucking circle.
Yes. While all the other ones had size issues, at least they looked like spiders.
>Christ sake, we even got the fat tick on the back finally and you peopel still bitch
Which is nice, but when you have all this other shit smeared on there it hardly matters anymore.