True or False: Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) aged much better than Spider-Man (2002).
If you say False and disagree, please explain why.
shareYes, but what do these films have in common other than the release year?
share
MovieChat Forums > Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) Discussion > True or False: Star Wars Episode II: Att...
I mean, maybe? Because AOTC takes place in a distant universe while SM was filmed in the early 2000’s. But regardless, SM is a far better movie with better characters, writing, and especially directing from Sam Raimi.
shareI agree with your evaluation of the film's overall quality comparison. That's why I'd say Spider-Man aged better. Films are held back by bad special effects only if the story is bad, too. Attack of the Clones has good special effects that look a little dated. The FX on Spider-Man have aged a little more, but it doesn't matter because the story is better and feels more timeless.
"This, like any story worth telling is all about a girl."
Whenever I think of Spider-Man, I think about this line. It's a bit of a lie (the story is about finding your path in life as much or moreso than "about a girl"), but Peter's growing affection for Mary-Jane does drive him a lot and is important to the story and, most importantly, it sums up the timelessness of the narrative here. Spider-Man is about growing up and accepting the responsibilities of adult life. That's timeless. That ages well.
Attack of the Clones is about...Anakin is really angry that he doesn't have more power. Or is it about forbidden love? Or maybe it's about political maneuvering and...don't make clones...? That the story is a mishmash with no real focus makes the movie age badly out of the gate.
Zulu is a classic. It's filled with rubber bayonets. I don't care about the rubber bayonets because the movie is SO GOOD.
Star Trek episodes like Balance of Terror have bad special effects. I don't care because the stories are great.
Aging films are more about "does the CGI hold up?" because film is about more than CGI. I think this is why I could get past the hokey de-aging in The Irishman. The rest of the movie is such a grand slam, who cares if the de-aging is weird?
So, all that to say: Attack of the Clones did not age well. Spider-Man did.
Exactly! Amen! See this is even why I feel Batman Begins aged well. The hand to hand fight scenes are choppily edited. Thing is the characters, acting and screenplay are so good it's easy to look past it. Spiderman I agree actually has more dated effects than attack of the clones. However I would much rather watch Spiderman. Same goes for liking Superman the movie over man of steel. Is Superman the movie dated and cheese?Oh absolutely but it has actual characters in it that have chemistry. Man of steel is soulless and bland. Pretty effects sure,but give me substance over flash.
Lord of the rings has certain spots that are very dated thing is it doesn't rely on effects, it relies on story and character.
100%.
shareFunny thing that you brought up these two movies, because I've been long thinking that James Franco maybe would have made a very good Anakin, based on his performance in Spider-Man...
To your question, I have to answer true, because I don't even like Spider-Man.
False. Spider-Man is still considered a good movie by most while people said this movie was bad when it came out and nothing has changed since then.
shareWeird comparison but ultimately YES. I certainly enjoyed AOTC and simply have a lot more interest in Star Wars in general. I didn't think any of the Spider Man movies were particularly great & have no investment in that universe.
share