vote which spiderman movie you like the best. 1,2, or 3.

i vote all lol cause each of them is so different and each of them was excellent.

1, 2, then 3. Fancy that.

1 was all-around good, 2 was ok, and 3 was a disappointment, because A) they picked a lame villain (Sandman) and Venom wasn't nearly as awesome as he should have been.

I liked 1 loved 2 havent seen 3 yet so thats why i chose Spiderman 2

The Third (anime reference..o.O), spiderman movie. The dark side of peter parker was of course dumb and geeky as hell but the rest of it, Venom and Harry, more than made up for it and the other two movies.

haha yea when parker added grease to his hair and dressed like some geek time-traveling from the 60's. oh yea and the eyeliner on his eyes ...? that was awkward. i liked the sandman and harry. venom was kinda lame, not as villainous as i would like him to be. but i like him only cause of the '70s Show lol.

I say number 3, 'cause Venom rocks and Peter loses Harry :P

2 kicked ass!
The fight scenes alone are worth seeing.

1 is okay, I didn't really like it only cause the story seemed rather slow - Also, Green Goblin is my least favorite villian. I will say this though, it really felt like a true rendition to the comic.

3 wasn't as good as both 1 and 2. I did like the whole Peter Parker turning asshole bit - I just wish they didn't make him so Emo looking. I really liked Venom and Sandman - especially Sandman's back story. I also liked the whole concentration on Peter's life juggling work/school while being Spidey. What fucked up the story for me was the fact that the movie was rushed. Every character's back story was too short. The fight scenes weren't long enough, and Venom was killed - or so we believe unless they make a 4th to bring out Carnage. What they should've done rather than a tag team battle royal, was leave Venom as a 4th movie villian - seeing how popular he is, he's a prefect stand alone. That way Sandman would have a better developed character like Doc Ock was, and Venom could also have a better story, and a prefect segway to Carnage in a 5th movie.

I'm a sucker for all 3, but I refuse to say they "rocked my socks"

None of all three really moved me one bit, simply cause I'm not a huge fan of the entire spidersuperhero thing. I hate spiders. I also hate men dressing up in spandex to look more like a spider. I'd like to stomp both kinds.

Eitherhow, I'd have to go for three, because I had a good laugh with Peter's emo showdance. Go him.

haha good one

The second one is miles ahead of the first and last

3. I laughed my arse off, and I have a soft spot for Thomas Hayden Chuch and Topher Grace.

YES, I DO.

Michael Jackson as Morbius for Spiderman 4!

I love everything Spidey, so I'm bias.

Out of the three films, Spider-Man 2 is regarded as the best of the trilogy. According to Rotten Tomatoes, Spider-Man 2 has an overall score of 93%. Which is very good for a comic book adaptation. Needless to say, it's my favorite of the trilogy. As for Spider-Man 3, I know I'm in the minority with most people I talk to about it, but I enjoyed it. A lot of complaints I hear are about Venom, Eddie Brock, and "emo" Peter. I'd like to take some time and address these complaints.

1.Venom
First of all, I guess it'd be best if I came out and said it. I don't particularly care for the symbiotes. I don't think they even fit in Spider-Man's rogues gallery. A lot of villains in Spider-Man are animal based. Some examples are Doctor Octopus, Rhino, The Vulture, Chameleon, etc. While sure, there are a few villains that don't fit that description, Green/Hobgoblin, Sandman, Mysterio, etc. They still aren't as out of place as the symbiotes. The problem for the movie, was that Sam Raimi really didn't like Venom or want to use him. He had originally planned for the Vulture to be the second villain of Spider-Man 3, but when Venom was forced into the movie, he had to take Vulture out and go along with him. For someone who doesn't like Venom that much (Don't even get me started on Carnage), I think he did a fairly good job of using the character. Alot of nerds complained about Venom "not referring to himself as we", and being unmasked most of the time. Never in the movie is the symbiote portrayed as a sentient being. Thus, it doesn't have an identity and wouldn't refer to itself as we or he or it. The times Venom's unmasked is when he's convincing Flint to join him and when he's taunting Peter. Both are good reasons to be unmasked. Would you join up with someone in a black mask with razor sharp teeth or would you be more inclined to join someone with a more human face? Then the point of unmasking in front of Peter was to show Peter who's doing this to him. This was personal for Eddie. Peter stole his job, his "girlfriend", to a more extreme point the life Eddie wanted for himself. Eddie wanted Pete to know who's kicking his ass and killing Mary Jane.

2. Eddie Brock
I hear complaints mostly because Eddie isn't made purely of muscle and is a weasel in the movie. My response, he doesn't need to be a roid freak to be Eddie. Where the comic made Eddie's size that way to foil Pete, the movie concentrated more on making Eddie not just a jerk, but a jerk you can sympathize with. He's full of himself and insecure. Unless you're perfect, you can't say you've never been either of these before. I know I have. It's part of being human.

3. "Emo" Peter
Pete's new look once he turned "bad" was a more modern take on the old cliche of the evil versions of characters that we used to see. In the past you'd see a leather jacket with the collar popped up riding a motorcycle or even a goatee. Bad Peter was obviously comic relief from the start. Once you see him strutting down the street making eyes with the ladies, it should be obvious that it was meant to be funny. Peter's essentially a nerd at heart and when he lets pride take over, do you think he's going to be suave? Nah, he's likely going to act like a jackass. Which is what he did.

Anyway, I think I've typed way too much about Spider-Man than I should so I'm going to end it here. Long post short, I like 2 the best and I think Sam Raimi's a great director.

I prefer 2 because it had a clear storyline, everyone knew where it was going (With spidey fighting doc, and harry becoming grumpy). Number 3 seemed like it had too many ideas and villans, and it seemed like the movie got lost within itself. It just seemed like it didn't have a clear idea of where it was going. I didn't mind the emo thing as much as other people, but it still was funny.

2 was fantastic, doc ock was always my favourite villan, and he was excellent in the film.

3 sucked my balls

Michael Jackson as Morbius for Spiderman 4!

you're genius

2, but I like them all.

finally, somebody with good taste

3rd.


Even though Venom didn't appear until the end of the movie. :(

i still like the first one the best, but it's pretty closely matched with 2. 3 was alright, but just plain stunk compared to the other 3 imo...i was pretty disappointed.

Okay, before I start, I'm in no way a nerd, but I do admit that I'm a dork - An average fan that knows abit more than an average person. What sets me apart from a nerd, is that I don't get all uppity when people make mistakes like the wrong names of characters or minor things like that.


I know I'm in the minority with most people I talk to about it, but I enjoyed it. A lot of complaints I hear are about Venom, Eddie Brock, and "emo" Peter. I'd like to take some time and address these complaints.I agree. I liked 3, just not as much as 2, but about the same as 1.


1.Venom
First of all, I guess it'd be best if I came out and said it. I don't particularly care for the symbiotes. I don't think they even fit in Spider-Man's rogues gallery. A lot of villains in Spider-Man are animal based. Some examples are Doctor Octopus, Rhino, The Vulture, Chameleon, etc. While sure, there are a few villains that don't fit that description, Green/Hobgoblin, Sandman, Mysterio, etc. They still aren't as out of place as the symbiotes. The problem for the movie, was that Sam Raimi really didn't like Venom or want to use him. He had originally planned for the Vulture to be the second villain of Spider-Man 3, but when Venom was forced into the movie, he had to take Vulture out and go along with him. For someone who doesn't like Venom that much (Don't even get me started on Carnage), I think he did a fairly good job of using the character. Alot of nerds complained about Venom "not referring to himself as we", and being unmasked most of the time. Never in the movie is the symbiote portrayed as a sentient being. Thus, it doesn't have an identity and wouldn't refer to itself as we or he or it. The times Venom's unmasked is when he's convincing Flint to join him and when he's taunting Peter. Both are good reasons to be unmasked. Would you join up with someone in a black mask with razor sharp teeth or would you be more inclined to join someone with a more human face? Then the point of unmasking in front of Peter was to show Peter who's doing this to him. This was personal for Eddie. Peter stole his job, his "girlfriend", to a more extreme point the life Eddie wanted for himself. Eddie wanted Pete to know who's kicking his ass and killing Mary Jane.Those are nerds for you. I hate when they complain about every little thing. I remember when it leaked out that it was originally supposed to be the Vulture and Sandman, as a matter of fact, it made more sense. However, I was hoping The Lizard would've been the 3rd villain since Dr. Connors had cameos in both 1 and 2, unfortunately, he became a stupid video game villain instead. Like I said in my previous post, Venom seemed to come out to early in the franchise. Since he's so popular, he could've been done as a 4th stand alone villain, To keep the franchise fresh. I mean look at Harry Potter, the franchise is half ways done, and it's still popular with every new installment. It's not like it'll flop in the box office. I hate when companies force themselves in the creative process. You would think they'd have trust in him with the success of 2.

I also agree about the reasons for unmasking himself - I just wish they would've kept the surprise a bit longer. I do however agree with them on the fact that he was unmasked most of the time.


2. Eddie Brock
I hear complaints mostly because Eddie isn't made purely of muscle and is a weasel in the movie. My response, he doesn't need to be a roid freak to be Eddie. Where the comic made Eddie's size that way to foil Pete, the movie concentrated more on making Eddie not just a jerk, but a jerk you can sympathize with. He's full of himself and insecure. Unless you're perfect, you can't say you've never been either of these before. I know I have. It's part of being human.I agree, he didn't have to be a bodybuilder. I actually liked that about him, He was average like Peter, and like Peter, he just wanted things to go his way for once.


3. "Emo" Peter
Pete's new look once he turned "bad" was a more modern take on the old cliche of the evil versions of characters that we used to see. In the past you'd see a leather jacket with the collar popped up riding a motorcycle or even a goatee. Bad Peter was obviously comic relief from the start. Once you see him strutting down the street making eyes with the ladies, it should be obvious that it was meant to be funny. Peter's essentially a nerd at heart and when he lets pride take over, do you think he's going to be suave? Nah, he's likely going to act like a jackass. Which is what he did.I understood the whole Good/Bad cliche - Notoriously made popular by Star Trek. In fact, I liked that he was cocky, but still a nerd, as to show that he's still Peter, just with a different attitude.

haha wow ...

i like lengthy comments =P

Spider-Man 2 is superior in every way to the other installments. Action, Character interaction, Acting, Direction, Cinematography, and production. It's the best super-hero movie and probably one of the better movies ever made.

The first Spider-Man was fine. Good acting, great sets, and... Willem Dafoe. There was nothing wrong with it. However, the second installment surpassed it.

Spider-Man 3 was a huge disappointment. None of the charm of the original movies was present in it. There were too many characters and not enough character development. The action scenes were good but that didn't save it. However, with all it's faults I still enjoyed watching it. However, I couldn't rate it above a 3/5.

And that's why I chose Spider-Man 2.

I voted for 2. The first one was fine but more of a scene setter introducing the characters and explaining their relationships. This left 2 to just let rip and have some incredible scenes and also it introduced J Jonah Jamesons son who if I remember correctly is actually Werewolf by Night and you just don't see any good werewolf movies nowadays.

werewolf? i don't recall seeing any werewolf in spiderman 2 and i deff don't recall j jonah jameson ever mentioning a son.

The guy that Mary-Jane left at the altar was Jamesons son and in the comics I'm sure he becomes a werewolf, but it's alright as he's a goody werewolf. Either that or I'm having a comic geek fueled acid flashback which isn't as much fun as it sounds

oohhh HIIMM. i never even realized he's a jameson! haha well in spiderman 2, he didn't turn into no werewolf. maybe in spiderman 4, which i'm pretty certain there will one coming up. that'd be rad. =P

werewolf? i don't recall seeing any werewolf in spiderman 2 and i deff don't recall j jonah jameson ever mentioning a son.

It either means that J Jonah Jameson is the son of the "werewolf" (whatever that means), or his bastard son is in fact a werewolf.

Wow. It's funny reading people's opinions and how different they are.


None of them are good. None of them are certainly one of the better movies ever made. Out of the three, I choose 1. The Willem Dafoe factor. Simple.

A movie shouldn't have to be amongst the best ever made for you to just sit down and enjoy it

Someone claimed it was one of the best ever made. I'm simply disagreeing.

Yeah, that was me. I thought Spider-Man 2 was the best comic book movie ever made and one of the better movies ever made too. And that's my opinion.

I liked Spider-Man 2 better than 1 and 3. 3 was like what??? When I saw it in the theater it was a packed house and everyone all started laughing at Peter's Emo look, and I looked over at my friend and said WTF?

definitely number 3 because i like character venom and there is allot of action in spiderman 3, more than in other 2 movies

definitely number 3 because i like character venom and there is allot of action in spiderman 3, more than in other 2 movies

http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/item/2000/1486/144584-venom_400.jpghttp://www.spiderman-3-movie-buzz.com/uploads/uploadForumPhotos/medium_Eddie%20Brock%20Transformed%20Into%20Venom-jxdi1c5a.jpg

Tell me, which looks cooler?

http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/item/2000/1486/144584-venom_400.jpghttp://www.spiderman-3-movie-buzz.com/uploads/uploadForumPhotos/medium_Eddie%20Brock%20Transformed%20Into%20Venom-jxdi1c5a.jpg

Tell me, which looks cooler?

The one that doesn't have the foot long tongue.