Which One Was Worse?

The X-Men franchise & the Spider-Man franchise have something in common, the first two X-Men films were great and the first two Spider-Man films were great too but what about X-Men: The Last Stand & Spider-Man 3? Were those part III films great too?

Well in a word, no...so my question to you is which film do you think was worse, X-Men 3 or Spider-Man 3? I think X3 was worse because the third Spider-Man film had it's moments, those moments were few and far between but that film had it's moments.

The only thing that was good about The Last Stand IMHO was Storm (Halle Berry) finally getting some character development.

I felt that Last Stand was the worser of the two films. The lack of Gambit overshadows the lack of Carnage. Spider-Man 3 was still a on-par movie, and definitely better than the first in my opinion. All Last Stand was, was a bunch of fighting, and not very cool fights, either. At the very least, Spider-Man did not have character moral recession.

Spiderman 3 was definitely worse. It deviated so completely from the comic that i just absolutely lost interest. It was just stupid when Spidey kept the symbiote suit on for too long, and the dramatic scenes all utterly failed because Tobey Maguire looks really funny.

Spiderman definately, I always thought Spiderman was more of a child's thing unlike X-men, they had Wolverine who owned!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guru

Spiderman 3 was definitely worse. It deviated so completely from the comic that i just absolutely lost interest. It was just stupid when Spidey kept the symbiote suit on for too long, and the dramatic scenes all utterly failed because Tobey Maguire looks really funny.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forbidden_Romance

Spiderman definately, I always thought Spiderman was more of a child's thing unlike X-men, they had Wolverine who owned!

---

I don't understand how Spider-Man 3 could be worse than X-Men 3 because X3 was style over substance. The third Spider-Man film may have strayed from the source material but at least that film had substance.

Spiderman 3 > X3

Honestly, X3 was horrible compared to spiderman 3 and I almost fell asleep watching it. Whilst Spiderman 3 was entertaining and I didn't care too much about it straying from the source material as long as I enjoyed it, which I did.

So, X-men was worse.

i liked them both and didn't think they were horrible at all

Spider-man 3 was better. It might have deviated from the comic in ways but X3 just took a huge dump all of the comics and then lit it on fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Araciel

I liked them both and I didn't think they were horrible at all.

---

I think you're probaby in the minority, here Araciel.

oh well...it happens. people have to remember that these franchise movies for one thing are made to appeal to a wider audience than the fanboys. i'm not saying what is done to the storylines is RIGHT, but i can see why it's done. then when sequels start coming out, in the spiderman series in particular, with sam raimi directing it, it's going to make some people scratch their heads and think (WTF?) at times..i mean some of it will become silly, of course, but the movies are taken from comic books, where anything is possible, and many divergent storylines are possible. people don't seem to remember what it's like to read a certain line of comics, only to have a new writer come in and change the direction of it completely, or rewrite an origin, or etc. etc. it's not an advent of film.


also, since a lot of people obviously don't sit through the credits, i suggest you rewatch every movie that's come out in the last couple of years and watch the credits roll of the screen, it has become a trend to put a little extra after the credits roll.

rant complete

Firstly, Spiderman 3 was more true to the original story. I'd like to point that out, because you're all wrong in your statements that it was inaccurate.

X-men 3 however, was a deviation. Whoever said they liked Storm in it, I was pissed about that. You know Halle Berry complained about not getting enough screen time, so that's half the reason she even got that development?

They both had funny moments, the best part of X-3 was the Juggernaught Bitch line.

I'd say they were both fine, but I was probably more dissapointed with X-3, but I also went in with higher expectations, because recently, sequels haven't been anything amazing so I had low expectations for Spidey 3. In fact, I have low expectations for movies in general nowadays.

I also find it funny how the title just gives complete negative feelings. It doesn't ask which is better, it asks which is worse. That immediately set the tone of the entire thread.

THE JACKEL

spiderman 3 was just plain boring:(

I prefered the first two X-Men movies to the first two Spider Man movies so went into X3 with higher expectations, which Is why I felt more disappointed with that film that Spider Man 3. That said, now they have come and gone, I can definately see Spider Man 3 as the movie I enjoyed less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9

Firstly, Spiderman 3 was more true to the original story. I'd like to point that out, because you're all wrong in your statements that it was inaccurate.

---

What? You need to get your facts straight here. Venom tries to kill Sandman in the comics, yet they seem to team up in the movie. Theres no other way to look at this other than seeing that the movie butchered what the comics originally told.

Ugh, easy. X3, gross.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9

Firstly, Spiderman 3 was more true to the original story. I'd like to point that out, because you're all wrong in your statements that it was inaccurate.

---

What? You need to get your facts straight here. Venom tries to kill Sandman in the comics, yet they seem to team up in the movie. Theres no other way to look at this other than seeing that the movie butchered what the comics originally told.

---

Go back and read Venom's origin story (it's widely available now in trade paperback so it's easy to find). The movie stayed more true to the original concept behind the character than every comic that came after that story did. I've said it before and I'll say it again; everything that's been done with Venom since the first story has only served to butcher the character as far as I'm concerned. That movie gave us Venom in his original glory, and I'm eternally grateful to Sam Raimi for having the sense to stay true to that.

As far as I'm concerned, Spider-Man 3 was the best of the three movies and I love the whole Spidey franchise. It not only managed to stay true to characters like Venom, but it made the Sandman an interesting villian for a change, and took the character of Peter Parker in a new and dare I say, original direction. Kudos to Sam Raimi.

X3 was more about them seeing how many out of character mutant cameos they could cram into one movie. It had things I liked about it, but overall it was a lot of flash with little substance, and managed to butcher half of the characters in it (both literally and in terms of character development). It made me realize just how much that franchise needed Brian Singer. I find it funny that just because Venom and Sandman team up you claim Raimi butchered the the story Dreddz, and yet you seem to have no problem with anything X3 did. Spidey 3 is the better movie by a long shot.