Why do you like the Original Spider-man films?

Do you prefer Raimi or Webb?Also why?and Why do you think most people like the Original films better?

Raimi. They simply have a better story, and better acting and cast.

I did like Raimis run, but I felt like JK Simmons put the trilogy on his shoulders.

I personally love Webbs films. The only things I liked in the first trilogy were Willem Defoe and James Franco.

@jayc1324: You think they have better acting????????????????

JJJ & Doc Ock are the only things I enjoyed in the Original Spider Man trilogy.

I personally think the original trilogy is outclassed by the ASM movies.

Raimi's.

@flameboy298: Yes. The cast of AMS 2 actually impressed me with their acting but it was way worse in the first movie. Also, raimi's films have Tobey McGuire, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, Kirsten dunst, JK Simmons... Come on, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone aren't better than that. Jamie foxx and whoever played harry were good but I think Franco's harry was better still.

I only really like Spider-Man in all honesty.

I don't.

@jayc1324: Dat Willem Dafoe!

TASM series, Andrew Garfield feels more like Spidey to me, and Emma Stone was a way better love interest than Kristen Dunst, Dane DeHaan waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better Harry Osborn than James Franco, Franco is the best at comedy, I liked Aunt May more in TASM as well. I also liked Lizard, Electro, and GG better than Raimi's GG, Doc Ock, Sand Man, and Venom.

I loved the Raimi films when I was younger, but not so much now.

Harry Osborn

Both series have things they did better than the others.

Raimi's series had a better Peter Parker, Webb's had a better Spider-Man. Raimi's villains had better character depth, Webb's were more menacing. Raimi's had JK Simmons, Webb's had Emma Stone. Raimi's series had better pacing, Webb's series had better action.

I enjoy Raimi's movies much more than TASM and TASM2. I don't care if TASM and TASM2 are closer to the comics. The elements they borrow from the comics aren't executed well. X-Men: The Last Stand was closer to the comics than most of the X-Men movies, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a giant turd. The same thing applies to TASM and TASM2. I'll admit that TASM2 was entertaining, but it wasn't a very good movie, and the more I think about it, the less I like it.

I preferred Webb's. The original Spider-Man movies weren't too bad at the time though.

Of course I enjoy the originals. Here's my thing,

I loved Spider-Man

I loved Spider-Man 2

I enjoyed Spider-Man 3. I am aware of its many flaws but I enjoyed it.

I did NOT enjoy Amazing Spider-Man. I feel like I need to watch it again(I only watched it once) because Spider-Man 3 left a bad taste in my mouth but I kind of enjoyed it and on the 2nd viewing I realized I do like it.

I do not like the 3rd film much but I do like it. I am thinking I did enjoy ASM1 a little bit even though it left a bad taste in my mouth.

I love Amazing Spider-Man 2

but yeah

SM3 and ASM1 are like the worse two films in my eyes. The rest I enjoyed heavily. (+)

Cuz they're good minus the third installment. The whole theater laughed during the entire movie.

Felt a little more mature, a little less teeny love story where the good little boy gets the girl of his dreams and they live happily ever after. ok yeah, that happened in the originals too but it was a little less embarrassing to watch.

Dunst is a terrible actress and her portrayal of Mary Jane was completely abyssal in every sense of the word. Stone's Stacy is superior in every single aspect from acting, to character usage, to writing of said character. She and Maguire had zero chemistry, their story had zero development over 3 movies and MJ is basically nothing but villain bait in 3 all films. That portrayal is easily as bad as Halle's Catwoman.

You're joking right? You need to rewatch those movies, because MJ is a disaster of a character.

Seriously. I can't even believe you people are trying to argue this aspect of the movies. Did we even watch the same film? If you want to like the originals more, so be it. But how can you seriously claim MJ was in any way shape or form better than Gwen.

Gwen was smart. She was useful to Spider-Man. She was smoking hot. She was extremely strong willed AND she was likable. Both times she came up against villains, not only did she not get captured, but she fought back and was instrumental in Spider-Mans victories over both Lizard and Electro.

The only thing Mary Jane has over her is a few wet t-shirt scenes to distract you from how terrible her character is in those films. It is not only one of the worst CBM character portrayals of all time, but is frankly one of the most insulting characters to women. She represents everything that is wrong with society's perception of woman: weak damsels in distress who are good for nothing but eye candy.

@fallschirmjager: you might be right I watched it when I was pretty young but def don't care for these new movies which seem to be targeted to a younger audience (understandably)

@dcrunstheshow: I do not agree, but to each his own.

@fallschirmjager: I thought they had chemistry actually but yes Emma Stone was a better actor. I really dislike Gwen Stacy as a character but Emma did do a great job with her and actually made her likeable. Still, Raimi's films had better acting overall

They really didn't.

So far, I like the Rami-verse better. But that's because 1 and 2 of that run is better than 1 and 2 of this run. The Webb version can gain a lot of ground if #3 is any good, because Spider-Man 3 was terrible. FWIW: Have to disagree with those calling Dunst a bad actress. Technically, she has a lot more range than Stone does. In the Rami-verse, she was playing gullible, easily confused, oversensitive teen, and pulled it off quite well. Now, you may not like that that's how the character was, but the problem was hardly her acting. "Likability" for a character has more to do with writing than acting. That MJ was less savvy than Gwen has nothing to do with Stone or Dunst's acting abilities, and much more to do with the script. MJ was captured and had to be rescued because that's how the show was scripted, and there was nothing Dunst could do to change that.

Spider-man 2 is one of the greatest comic book movies ever made.

@fallschirmjager: I think they did. Peter and harry were perfect, so was Norman and JK Simmons was great as well.

Couldn't disagree more. James Franco is a terrible actor unless he's playing himself - a retarded stoner. Hence why he's only now been successful doing comedy.

Maguire too is mediocre at best and was terrible. That's why he's not relevant as an actor anymore. He's done barely any films since SM3 and zero ones where he is the title actor.

Dafoe is great, but it was ruined by a terrible costume which completely muffed his voice and covered up his face (read: Bane)

JK Simmons is all you have.

Garfield,, Stone, DeHaan, etc can and would circles around them.

I'll take the first three anyday.. MJ > Gwen. JK Simmons > Anybody. Franco > Dehaan. Maguire > Garfield.

@fallschirmjager: I guess we will just have to disagree then. Franco isn't a great actor per se but he was good in spiderman, same with Maguire. And the costume thing is subjective.

@wolverine08: I remember at least two, one in each of the first two movies.

There is probably one in 3 as well. Just for the sake of it.

Hell, even Gwen was a damsel in distress in those movies. *sigh*

@fallschirmjager: Ain't nothing wrong with a wet t shirt here and there!

I like Webb's, 'cause the movie feels more authentic and just better in quality.

Both have flaws

Rami's had meh acting, silly time wasting plot points, and a lack of anything really funny (the Jk bit get's old) also Topher grace

Webb's had the misfortune of other factors like wasting time rebooting a story we already know and working towards a pointless spin off, hurts the films overall . Yet, they seems to have problems with the villains (Raimi did 2) Case in point, Max's nerd thing was over done, everyone and their mother dumped on this guy. Lizard was a tad rushed.

Still like Webb more, design/acting/jokes wise but it's nothing perfect

the only good portrayals in Raimi's films were Aunt May and JJJ...that's it...everyone else was horrible at their roles and were horrible casting choices

I love the original trilogy, I liked SM 3 too, not too much but I didn't hate it. JKS as JJJ, Molina as Doc Ock, Toby as Spidey and Dafoe as GG were near near perfect. Uncle Ben, Aunt May, Harry and MJ were good too.

Raimi because I think they are the better movies.

Webb. More accurate Spider-Man/Peter Parker. Better humor, better effects, better love interest, better Harry Osborn.

The only thing Raimi did better was have Simmons as J.J.

Incorrect. He also had Doctor Octopus. Outside of that lapse, I agree.

@risingbean: I didn't like whiny, poet, controlled by his arms, sympathetic Doc Ock tbh.

@the_stegman: Ok. I can get behind that in it wouldn't be how I used him, but I really, really liked it nonetheless. I hope we get another Ock who is jerkish and as nasty as they come. But I will still have a soft spot for Raimi's take.

Raimi. The ASM series has its advantages, but Raimi's trilogy takes it overall.

I don't care if Webb's movies had better special-effects or humor or what not - the first and most important aspect of any movie in my mind is a structured and well-paced story, which ASM2 failed spectacularly at.

^This, except Molina was also good (character changes from the comic are down to writers)

Dafoe is poor in the 1st movie, he prances around pulling faces like a reject from a Joel Schumacher movie, he's clearly patterning his portrayal on the awful 90s cartoon series Green Goblin, and he's playing it like a pantomime villain.

Unfortunately this is what a lot of talented actors do, as soon as they hear "comic book" they immediately think they need to start acting over the top and larger than life, like a character from Adam West's Batman TV series.

and I swear James Franco does Joey from Friends' "fishhook in the eyebrow" acting tactic to show evilness at some points.

You mean this??

Nah, that's his "90s chewing gum advert" expression.

Raimi made Spider-Man more suitable for the drama and possible romantic movie. Webb Spider-Man is too much about effects and millions of super enemies.

I liked first and second movie because there was one villain and the actor who played him made a great work. On the other hand, digital lizard never really impressed me.

Tobey is also a better actor than Garfield who seems like Edward Cullen copy.

No, Garfield was nothing like edward cullen. he never acted nor did things like edward did.tobey was more like george mcfly but always stuck as a marshmellow. he basically had no flaws whatsoever