Spiderman VS AOTCS

Spiderman's plot is too simplistic compared with AOTC. Entertaining though.

Nice try pappy. Look at the daily B.O. AOTC is pulling in a mere 1 mill more than Spidey which has been out forever. Spidey's extra screens are not 2 to 1.. theres probably a few hundred more scattered throughout the country.. this perhaps meant something early on but no longer.. neither films are selling out so whoever wants to go can... easily.. It just so happens that more people went to see Spider-man..

No.. Spidey will win..

Well, I've been a Spidey fan and a SW fan for approximately the same amount of time (7 years or so) and I loved both movies. As a comic fan, I was very worried about Spidey as most comic movies are awful. In the end, I was very pleased. Some facts were changed, but the characters *felt* right and that's what's most important.

I can't say anyting about the special effects, because I don't notice them usually. A couple scenes were obviously CGI, and didn't look real, but the rest was great. And he movied like Spider-Man. Before he got used to web-slinging his feet would be churning like he was trying to run on air. But he learned. And that final swinging sequence was great.

And, I was pleased it wasn't just an action-packed extravaganza. Those who read comics know that just as much time goes to character development and plot as does to action. Peter's always been about the people he cares about. The movie didn't forget that.

Rebecca

ps the reason I didn't comment on SW was because everyone here already knows what's good about AOTC

I think it makes more sense to compare AOTC with Lord of the Rings than with Spider-Man. Both AOTC and LOTR are big epic myths with an ensemble cast of characters in wildly fantastic locations...and both are 'episodes' of a necessary multipart storyline. (And Lucas was probably influenced by reading Tolkien in his youth.)

Spider-Man is a totally different type of movie...the focus is really only on one character (and the bad guy), and the setting is much more narrow and 'realistic.' It's a simpler movie, basically.

Some friends here (Australia) have seen it (I'm planning to see it on Monday) and they weren't too impressed. They said it was too simple, too much of what they've seen before (ie, comic book hero, comic book villain, damsel in distress, big city). They also commented that that's probably why it's done so well in America. People there like having the tried and true stories repeated to them over and over again.

Perhaps there's some truth to that.

Naaah. The U.S. makes the most big-budget flicks that go worldwide but there are plenty of movie makers elsewhere. Heck, India makes FAR more movies every year than the U.S. (about 1200, the world leader.) In fact I'd say a lot of the better films come from overseas. In the past year I've seen an excellent film from Columbia ('Our Lady of the Assassins'

I tend to agree. I don't understand all the hoopla over Spider-Man. It was good, but not great. I actually found the dialogue lame in parts. It could have taken more chances, been less of a cliche. For instance, when Spider-Man shows up at that burning building and there's a woman screaming for him to save her baby. I'm thinking, oh cripes, what a cliche! I was hoping he would come back out of the building carrying a little poodle or something, and the woman is all smiles like 'You saved my baby!' or something like that. But sure enough, Spider-Man comes back with .... a baby. Yawn.

The U.S. unquestionably makes the greatest movies, but it should be noted that the best international directors (John Woo, Peter Jackson, Alejandro Amenábar, etc.) almost inevitably end up making films in Hollywood, thereby keeping the talent pool continuously stacked in Tinseltown.

Later,

Of course it was a cliche.. it was put there delibratley to set up the scene which followed with Spidey returning into the building only to be ambushed by the Goblin which was probably the best fight in the film. whatta nitt.