> Spider-Man is different to Batman, and it has to be really. You can't just
> have two things the same. And Spider-Man ultimately suceeds where it can
> do what Batman couldn't do, use more hi-tech advances to make the villain
> decidedly evil, and the superhero amazing. His repetition of certain
> themes leave the audience under no illusions that this is immense. And it
> complents the film so well. It should be no wonder that this seems to be
> above what Batman could do. All in all it is a great film and a great
> score. As scores go this could take some beating. Batman doesn't even come
> close to this. And nor do many others he's composed. Comparing this to
> Batman is like composing it to David Arnold's bond. An unfair unjust
> comparison.
This comment above is both asinine and void of common sense. Why start comparing technology when Spider-Man was made a decade after Batman? If you have even the slightest clue about technology (which I assume you don't based on your Neanderthal logic), it changes easily with each passing year. Spider-Man had that advantage. And please, don't compare these two movies. Batman set the standard for comic book to movie transitions after a long hiatus from Superman and its ugly sequels. Spider-Man was okay at best with a lazy score written by Elfman.
| 
