Worst superhero movies of all time

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think Spider-Man 3 is...good. There I said it,don't shoot me!

Same here, I much prefer Spidey 3 over X3.

 

[First Avenger]

Prefer it to what I used to, but I used to hate it with a passion, now I can tolerate it, still think it's a poor movie though.

Got it.

 

[First Avenger]

Same here, I much prefer Spidey 3 over X3.

I mean it's not comparable to the first two but it has lots of good stuff.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Got it.

I mean it's not comparable to the first two but it has lots of good stuff.

Oh yeah the first 2 are much better, but I like some things in the 3rd movie and the good outweighs the bad for me.

 

[First Avenger]

I also have to rewatch Lee's Hulk someday. It's been a long time since I saw it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I also have to rewatch Lee's Hulk someday. It's been a long time since I saw it.

Love that movie, way ahead of its time for me, still give it a watch every now and again now.

 

[Boy Scout]

I think ASM2 gets way more hate than it actually deserves. It's a decent movie with a few cringeworthy movies. Nothing more, nothing less. I think it made its money back, too, so even if it didn't make as much money as the studio had hoped, it wasn't a massive failure either.

I also have to rewatch Lee's Hulk someday. It's been a long time since I saw it.

Don't waste your time.

 

[Napoleon]

Probably X-Men Origins: Wolverine, because it took a giant, steaming **** on my favorite character. Granted, I haven't seen most of these, so it might change if I do.

 

[Iron_Stark]

My vote goes to Howard the Duck. How in the world did that movie get made? And who thought it would be a good idea to have a human female/duck sex scene?

Howard the Duck and Marty McFly's mom had more chemistry than Fant4stic's Reed and Sue.

 

[HaplessHenchman]

Howard the Duck and Marty McFly's mom had more chemistry than Fant4stic's Reed and Sue.

Haven't seen it so I wouldn't know.

 

[Batsfan1]

I think ASM2 gets way more hate than it actually deserves. It's a decent movie with a few cringeworthy movies. Nothing more, nothing less. I think it made its money back, too, so even if it didn't make as much money as the studio had hoped, it wasn't a massive failure either.

It has Peter turn a plutonium truck into traffic and then swing away as it demolishes and destroys several cars, killing or injuring several people. TASM 2 makes J. Jonah Jameson right.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

[Boy Scout]

In SM2, he makes no effort to locate Doctor Octopus after their first or second confrontation, giving him the opportunity to rob more banks, kill more people, and do God knows what.

 

[The Joker]

In SM2, he makes no effort to locate Doctor Octopus after their first or second confrontation, giving him the opportunity to rob more banks, kill more people, and do God knows what.

That's because he quits being Spider-Man. Which is the whole point of when heroes quit. They turn their back on their heroic duties. Like trying to locate villains.

 

[Boy Scout]

Yes, I'm aware. That doesn't make it better, or the character less irresponsible.

 

[Batmannerism]

Out of the ones above I have to pick Batman and Robin, mostly for the immense disappointment factor.
I mean, Superman IV was terrible, but still had Chris Reeve (and he was always great as Superman)
Supergirl was awful but Helen Slater was incredibly cute as the girl of steel.

As for the FF movies of 2005/2007, I actually enjoyed them (other than Julian McMahon as Dr Doom, ouch !). I had low expectations and they were met. I haven't yet seen FF 2015, just based on reviews and feedback from people I know who did see it.

Howard the Duck was hilarious, well when I was a kid anyway. If you don't take it seriously at all, it's not that bad.

Daredevil wasn't great, but given when it came out, isn't that bad either. Elektra sucks but

Of course, my personal least favourite Superhero film is Superman Returns (for reasons I won't get into, as I've fought that one out on about 10 different threads over the past few years).

I'm also not keen on Iron Man 3, but I can't seriously argue on either of these as they were reasonably critically and commercially successful.

Batman and Robin (after Batman Forever, which was cheesy but fun) was a huge let down, it just sucked on every level.

I actually enjoyed the Ghost Rider films, they were fun - and the second one features Nic Cage at his craziest, which is always entertaining.

Also, excuse my ignorance, but what's FFINO ? I'm really tired from a long week and the acronym part of my brain is a bit burnt out.

I haven't seen Steel, but from what I understand it's really a B-Movie, so doesnt' really deserve as much hate as B and R, as it wouldn't carry the same level of funding or expectation.

I have seen Jonah Hex, and it's rubbish - almost unwatchable, which also sums up a fair chunk of Green Lantern...ughh ! And I'm a fan of the comic GL.

Anyway, there's my 5 cents ! Cheers.

 

[The Joker]

Yes, I'm aware. That doesn't make it better, or the character less irresponsible.

Yes, it does make it better, because that was the whole point. He was being irresponsible, and the movie makes that clear. It was part of the character journey. Not to mention lifted straight from one of the most iconic Spidey stories. Had the movie presented him behaving this way as though it was ok with no conflict or guilt on his part, then there would be grounds for criticism.

 

[Boy Scout]

Yes, it does make it better, because that was the whole point.

No, it really doesn't.

He was being irresponsible, and the movie makes that clear. It was part of the character journey.

And? The point is that, in both instances, the character acted irresponsibly and put people in danger. If you agree with that, then there's no argument to be had.

Not to mention lifted straight from one of the most iconic Spidey stories.

Okay?

Had the movie presented him behaving this way as though it was ok with no conflict or guilt on his part...

Where was the conflict, guilt, or remorse? The movie made it very clear that being Spider-Man was affecting Peter's life in a negative way. His life improved dramatically after he quit, and he only put on the mask again after the criminal he let get away tossed a car through a coffee shop.

...then there would be grounds for criticism.

It's grounds for criticism either way. When someone acts irresponsibly - and you admitted that SM2's Peter acted irresponsibly - they deserve to be criticized. Simple as that.

I'm not trying to prop up ASM2 by dragging down SM2; I'm just saying that if you're going to criticize one for their irresponsibility, you should probably criticize the other, too.

 

[Flint Marko]

Spider-man 2's depiction of irresponsibility seemed intentional, genuine, and story driven.
ASM's depiction of irresponsibility was an after thought, an unintended consequence of them not knowing what sort of characterization they want for Peter. It was completely thoughtless and empty, with no real reason behind it.

 

[Boy Scout]

Spider-man 2's depiction of irresponsibility seemed intentional, genuine, and story driven.

Sure, but I don't think it makes that much of a difference, from a character standpoint. Peter in SM2 was tired of being a hero, so he acted selfishly and irresponsibly. Peter in ASM2 was cocky and overconfident, and acted just as irresponsibly. The fact that the former intentionally portrayed the character as irresponsible doesn't take away from the fact that he was irresponsible, which is and always has been my point.

ASM's depiction of irresponsibility was an after thought, an unintended consequence of them not knowing what sort of characterization they want for Peter.

I'm not sure where you're getting that impression. I thought his personality was consistent. Whether I (or anyone else) liked the person he was is a different story. I do think that Peter's irresponsibility in that film was not intentional, and is therefore a case of poor writing, but I never denied that ASM2 suffered from an occasionally poorly written script.

 

[The Joker]

No, it really doesn't.

Yes, it really does

And? The point is that, in both instances, the character acted irresponsibly and put people in danger. If you agree with that, then there's no argument to be had.

Of course I don't agree with it, and neither is the audience supposed to. The movie never tries to portray Peter's choice as anything other than a flawed decision he makes. They even have a whole scene with Uncle Ben trying to talk him out of it. That was the whole point. Peter is a flawed character who decided he could quit being Spider-Man and live a normal life, something he learned he could not do. Same as the comic book character.

Heroes make mistakes, bad judgement calls, hurt friends and loved ones intentionally or unintentionally, even get drunk on power and fame, and a plethora of other things that they learn from. As long as the story makes it clear it's not a good thing, and the hero learns this and learns from it, then I don't see why it would be basis for criticism.

Where was the conflict, guilt, or remorse? The movie made it very clear that being Spider-Man was affecting Peter's life in a negative way. His life improved dramatically after he quit, and he only put on the mask again after the criminal he let get away tossed a car through a coffee shop.

For a start when he has the conversation in his mind with Uncle Ben, and tearfully rejects Uncle Ben telling him he has to go on as Spider-Man.

Then when he turned his back on the guy being mugged in the alley way, he looked totally guilty and conflicted about doing it. Then the next time he decides he can't stand by and do nothing as an average citizen, and decides to act to save someone (the child in the burning building), and he learns that someone else died while he was in there. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. We then see him agonizing over this in his apartment before the Landlord's daughter comes in and shows him some kindness with the cake.

Yeah, since he quit being Spidey he gets some improvements in his life like he manages to get to class on time, and he makes it to see MJ's play, but that's fluff in comparison he's seeing people get hurt and killed when he could have done something as Spider-Man to stop it, and that eats away at him. By the time Ock accosts him in the coffee shop he'd already made the conscious decision to be Spider-Man again, that's why he rejects MJ moments before Ock steps in.

It's grounds for criticism either way. When someone acts irresponsibly - and you admitted that SM2's Peter acted irresponsibly - they deserve to be criticized. Simple as that.

No it's not. You're complaining about a character making a mistake, and learning from it. If Peter acted irresponsibly, the movie never portrayed it as him doing anything wrong by doing that, he showed no guilt or conflict for that, and worse yet didn't even learn from it, then you'd be right to criticize it.

By your logic here you might as well criticize him for letting Uncle Ben's killer run by, another mistake he made and learned from.

I'm not trying to prop up ASM2 by dragging down SM2; I'm just saying that if you're going to criticize one for their irresponsibility, you should probably criticize the other, too.

I'm not sure what aspect of ASM 2 you're referring to here, as there's so much to criticize in that movie. I'm talking strictly about the post you made regarding Spider-Man 2. I wasn't addressing anything to do with ASM 2.

 

[Victarion]

Thor: The Dark World, Iron-Man 2, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III, TMNT 2006, both Ghost Rider movies, both sets of Fantastic Four movies, Catwoman, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin Schumacher, Batman and Robin 66, Batman 1989, TASM 2, Superman I-III (I stopped at III, never got to IV), Superman Returns, Wolverine, the half of Spider-Man after Dafoe starts doing his Green Goblin routine (though that ending fight almost makes up for it, it was really fantastic and has yet to be surpassed in the superhero genre; I just wish the buildup had been better).

These are the ones I've seen that left me cold.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

The strangest thing about Steel is it being developed by that guy who made the 70s Hulk TV show.

Also, excuse my ignorance, but what's FFINO ? I'm really tired from a long week and the acronym part of my brain is a bit burnt out.

Fantastic Four In Name Only.

In SM2, he makes no effort to locate Doctor Octopus after their first or second confrontation, giving him the opportunity to rob more banks, kill more people, and do God knows what.

And in SM1 he makes no effort to locate the Goblin, giving him more chance to kill and scare people.
That doesn't mean he's not responsible, but he has other matters to take his attention.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I haven't seen this exact poll yet, so I apologize if this is redundant:
What is the absolute worst theatrical superhero film of all time?
I have only included the movies that are widely regarded as the worst of the worst..

Whenever this subject is discussed, it never includes the absolute worst efforts of the genre. Even something as bad as Batman & Robin (and it was HORRID) looks Shakespearean when compared to Vampirella, Man-Thing, and Condorman. If you've never heard of those films, there's an obvious reason for that.

And the absolute worst Super hero film of all time has an undisputed champion, which is likely to reign for all time:

 

[Spider-Aziz]

^The idea of that movie makes me stop in my tracks for a while..[blackout]
Evil Spider-Man leads a gang and makes a mouse eat some guy's eye.[/blackout]

 

[Lantern Venom]

^The idea of that movie makes me stop in my tracks for a while..[blackout]
Evil Spider-Man leads a gang and makes a mouse eat some guy's eye.[/blackout]

There are about 100 reasons to name it as the worst of all time. The fact that it was made without Marvel's permission, with almost zero adherence to any of the characters' designs, powers, or origins puts it in a class by itself.