Marvel and DC rip each other off so often and so blatantly that many superheroes and their stories are rehashes. Would I expect differently for the movies? I can say the same for Batman Returns and Daredevil.

There are only about six stories total that are retold in a bunch of different variants or permutations. There are similarities between Spider-Man and Superman, because they're both characters who basically do the same thing.

They both fight the same crimes. They both have secret identities, they both love a girl. These are the major components of the stories.

All the other things that might branch off this in the comics are things that simply aren't interesting, identifiable or relevant to a movie audience. That's why X-Men couldn't make the Phonenix story about space aliens.

But despite the similarities, these are different heroes, even though Spidey was no doubt created to be an analog to Supes. The obvious difference between Superman and Spider-man is that Superman is a god, and Spider-man is just a guy, and this leads to big thematic differences when directors like Donner or Singer or Raimi look at these characters and try to figure out what about them will make a good film.

Superman and Superman II are very much movies that flow out of the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate era, and Superman was a parable about the America we wanted to be. He's indestructible, he's unstoppable. And he doesn't lie.

Spider-Man is a post 9/11 metaphor for who we are. Powerful, but at the same time vulnerable, and wanting to do the right thing, but not necessarily up to the task.

Spider-Man 2 and Superman 2 are both about the hero giving up his powers, but Superman is giving up godhood to end his loneliness and isolation. What is that big ice castle if not a giant fucking metaphor. Spider-Man also tries to give up being Spider-Man, because he feels that he can't handle the burden and that it shouldn't have to be his job to save everyone else.

Personally, I thought the Superman movies didn't wholly work. They focused too much on Superman's alien-ness, and they really played off his human side as nothing but a front for the god, which made his relationship with Lois Lane very hard to believe.

Spider-man carries his super-ness as a burden much more believably. You can understand the things he needs that he can't have because he has to be Spider-Man.

Superman is bulletproof and lives in a palace made of ice. He doesn't need anything. His motivations were always half baked, and the movies worked on the effects and Christopher Reeve's charm. I think the Spider-Man movies better integrate the themes and work better as movies.

Are we talking about movie versions or comic versions? I've never heard anyone say that one is very similar to the other -- except that they're both popular, mainstream superheroes that were easily recognizable even before their movies.

I actually thought that the Spider-Man costume was the most perfect representation of any comic book superhero's appearence on the big screen.

I agree. That Spider-Man costume is badass.

But we all equally agree that the Green Goblin's mask in the first picture is an absolute shame, right? There's always three things that make me cringe about the first Spider-Man:

- The Green Goblin Mask
- The Green Goblin Mask
- The Green Goblin Mask

... no, but seriously, I always cringe at:

- Macy Gray
- Mary-Jane's stupid sentimental speech at the ending of the film which I otherwise though was really good.
- The Green Goblin Mask.

I thought Spiderman 2 was tons better than 1. I thought 1 was good, but there was just something missing that I can't quite put my finger on.

Of course, I have never read a Spidey comic, so all the changes and what-not don't upset me as much. Also, I was shocked to see that MJ and Harry learned that Peter was Spiderman. Moreso Peter because of that scene being in the trailer, so I was almost sure what he really saw was not Peter, so I was blown away when it actually was what I was hoping for.

I would still put Batman Begins just a hair ahead of Spiderman 2, but Spiderman 3 looks to wipe them both out.

But you can't really tell with a 30 second teaser, at least half of which is a camera panning over red spandex.

I love both of the Spiderman movies and can't wait for 3.

= J

A minute and a half, to be exact.:P

But yeah, alot of things could be different in the movie. A fear I have is they are stuffing too many villians and new characters into it and it's just going to feel bloated.

and considering the running times of Superman Returns and Pirates 2 ... will likely be a 190-minute "epic".

I agree 100% and one of the only things I truly loved about Spiderman 1 & 2...

RE: Green Goblin mask

Yes, you're absolutely right. It is pretty awful. But the Spider-Man costume is still pretty cool.

RE: Macy Gray

This issue came up in another thread about certain scenes that "age" movies. I definitely think the Macy Gray scene is bad now, but I don't think it'll be bad in about ten years or so to new viewers. Her music career (I'm assuming...) will by then be long forgotten, so potential new viewers might just see it as a really awful music performance and not have our Macy Gray prejudice attached to that scene. Does that make sense?

So it goes.

Don't forget the Julia Roberts line... I always cringe when movies put in real celeb names...

Apparently you're new to dvdtalk. There are posters here who can tell thow much they hate a movie with just a teazer.... :p

OOOOUCH!!! fuckin' OUCH!!!!! :grunt: Nice Thesis. While I understand your ideas, I've basically heard every Marvel lemming say this, it still hurts. :lol: