This some kind of joke?

@waxonator:

Well if he didn't, then he was surprisingly accurate about Spider Man's world, origins and character.

Huh?

Taking the thread title as sarcasm -

I don't think anyone argues that Raimi didn't follow the basic outline of Spider-Man's plot, mainly they dislike how inaccurate a job he did of representing the characters, making a complete mess of Mary Jane, blatantly basing his Peter Parker on Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent instead of the comics, trying to make every villain sympathetic and cramming them into Pete's origin story, etc etc.

PS. I'm not sure what that Green Goblin comparison is supposed to represent

Yeah. Sure thing there was lots of respect shown for story points and visuals, but many of the basic concepts of Spider-Man were messed up. Mary Jane most notably, but the origin too. There is/was annoying trend for Hollywood to whitewash superheroes (and I'm not talking about racial thing here). For example, in the comics Peter became arrogant for his novelty act, refused to stop a theft and Ben got shot. In the movie, he was screwed out of his pay and paid back to his empoyer for refusing to stop a theft - which got Ben killed. It's a subtle difference, but it dumbs down the character origin and lessens the impact of moral lesson. (It was much more egregious in case of Hulk, where the origin was mutilated beyond recognition). Producers don't want to risk the character becoming "unlikeable" and they are written more like victims.

Taking the thread title as sarcasm -

I don't think anyone argues that Raimi didn't follow the basic outline of Spider-Man's plot, mainly they dislike how inaccurate a job he did of representing the characters, making a complete mess of Mary Jane, blatantly basing his Peter Parker on Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent instead of the comics, trying to make every villain sympathetic and cramming them into Pete's origin story, etc etc.

PS. I'm not sure what that Green Goblin comparison is supposed to represent

Sarcasm aside, here I must disagree. First of all, Raimi did no based his version of Peter on Chris Reeves's Clark Kent. He based it on original Parker from Silver Age of comics, who was portrayed as being naive and dorky, resembling an Opie Taylor archetype in a lot of ways. I know that a lot of Spider-Man fans built in their head an idea that Peter Parker became an ultimate macho after he left the school, but that is bullcrap. Even in modern comics, when he was married to Mary Jane, writers kept emphasizing his nerdiness. The example I remember the most is in one of the issues in Straczynski's run, in a one-shot story in which Peter goes with Mary Jane to the airport - because she is going for audition in some magazine or something - and Peter, while in the cab, starts mumbling scientific nonsense about insects and arachnids without even realizing how uninterested Mary Jane is for listing to this. As for the villains, making Spider-Man villains sympathetic has always been a thing, wasn't it? Isn't good majority of Spider-Man villains victims of some bad circumstances? Osborn have always been a sympathetic villain. Dock. Ock started as an enthusiastic scientist who wanted to make break-through in science but became victim of his own ego. I'm not going to defend Spider-Man 3, even though Sandman in the comics was moving from good to bad side from time to time. Goblin is related to Spider-Man personally is the comic book canon. Same with Dock. Ock.

Yeah. Sure thing there was lots of respect shown for story points and visuals, but many of the basic concepts of Spider-Man were messed up. Mary Jane most notably, but the origin too. There is/was annoying trend for Hollywood to whitewash superheroes (and I'm not talking about racial thing here). For example, in the comics Peter became arrogant for his novelty act, refused to stop a theft and Ben got shot. In the movie, he was screwed out of his pay and paid back to his empoyer for refusing to stop a theft - which got Ben killed. It's a subtle difference, but it dumbs down the character origin and lessens the impact of moral lesson. (It was much more egregious in case of Hulk, where the origin was mutilated beyond recognition). Producers don't want to risk the character becoming "unlikeable" and they are written more like victims.

Personally, that's a bullshіt complaint. I don't see the idea of Peter refusing to stop the thief because he got screwed to be any more inaccurate than, let's say, the idea that Tony Stark in the first Iron Man movie had a mentor figure who helped him to become the world's most successful weapon manufacturer, instead of him being a self-made man who was always on his own, like in the comics. It doesn't change the moral conclusion to which the character comes afterwards. In both movie and comic book origin Peter allows his ego to prevail above his morals. In the end, both movie and comic book versions learn the lesson of responsibility through personal loss caused by their indifference.

Raimi Spider-Man >>> any other live action Spider-Man.

To prove Sam never read a Spidey comic you would have had to follow him around since his birth.

Raimi's Spider-Man is clumsy and meek, he's nothing like silver age Peter Parker at all, he's just a goofier Chris Reeve Clark Kent.

Ditko's Peter Parker was full of resentment, this dissipated over time as he grew in confidence and formed relationships with his coworkers (and later his college friends during the Romita era). Pete was also never a doormat after the bite, he was a wiseguy.

Doctor Octopus was always an egocentric douchebag with mummy issues in the comics, whereas frikkin Raimi Doc Ock was a saint who was being mind controlled by his arms! how is that accurate to the comic books? It was just Shoehorned pathos.

Mary Jane was weak-willed as hell in the Raimi movies, Mary Jane is not a dim, over-emotional mess.

----------------------------

The second Spider-Man movie is a well-constructed piece of cinema, but it is not a particularly accurate rendition of Spider-Man. The influence of Richard Donner's Superman films on those Spider-Man movies is clear as day and pretty much all-pervading.

Important to know that in the third film Raimi was forced to do a lot of scenes he himself didn't approve of

Ha! This is what I've been trying to tell people for years. Everything about the original Spider-Man trilogy was spot-on except for the lack of jokes from Spidey during fights.

As much as I loved the first two Raimi movies, MJ was wasted.

MJ was decent enough in the first film but generally, Kirsten Dunst as MJ was a poor casting.

To be fair, with the lines she was given, dubious anyone would have done better. Blame the writers.

I thought that, too.

Well said, my friend.

Woah! That was some cool stuff.

I like what's being said too. I learn something new every day.

Love the Raimi films but MJ lost all character. It's a really bad thing to do with such a fun person as MJ.

Though in return, we did get a great portrayal of Harry Osborne which I loved. Raimi did some fun stuff with Harry and Norman, stuff we didn't or still have ever seen in the comics. Harry has never been really utilized to his full potential but Raimi did go deep into the friendship and hatred Harry felt for Peter. It was beautiful and amazing and made me love Harry.

@itsaworld:

Peter, Aunt May, Harry, Jameson, Norman, Doc Ock and Sandman were all outstanding and reminiscent to their comic book counterparts. It was a very well done first two movies, with the only redeeming quality of Spider Man 3 being Sandman himself and some of the epic fights and set pieces. Oh and the black suit!

@timariot: This is a problem that plagues all comics with a greater emotional arc to fulfill. In order to appeal to the greatest audience possible the creators often dumb down the content and misrepresent the characters. You think it's bad here? Read any Mark Millar comic and then watch it's film adaptation. Although in terms of Mark Millar comics, which often tackle very mature, aggressive, and graphic concepts I do understand why a director would have to change alot to be different from the source material. Most people aren't ok with a main character that goes around raping and killing random people.

Rami did a great job with the spiderman series. You can't have an exact retelling of the comic. It would be really stupid. You need to have some change. You need to keep it similar and accurate to a degree, but not the exact same. He did do a horrible job with Venom and Gwen in my opinion.

You could really tell Sam Raimi cared about Spider-man. I remember hearing that Tobey Macguire read the first 50 issues for the first movie.

Thanks for posting these comparison shots! I love all three movies. I really liked the first Amazing Spider-man as well.

is this supposed to be funny or saracstic? it looked liked he did pretty well to me. the only difference was the organic webs. also, peter's humor wasn't their.

Batman v Superman also brought panels from the comics to life, but it didn't make that movie any less terrible.

Batman v Superman is awesome, shut up

Nah it sucked.

Lets just agree to disagree

All Spider-Man movies and the modern cartoons are a betrayal of the character, when I was a kid Spider-Man was a Spider-Man! not a spider-beta or a spider-dork, or a Spider-pussy.

First of all, I think you should differentiate Spider-Man and Peter Parker. Since their personalities tend to differ in both comics and movies. If you're talking strictly about Peter, then, no, Peter Parker in the original comics was clumsy. Here, Man The Stan Lee himself gives you a description of what Peter Parker was originally:

Second, Peter always had an insecure personality. That's where the common conflict of him not being able to balance his life comes from - he can't balance it because of how messy it is and how unsure he is about everything. If Peter was the way you described him, then, boy oh boy, Spider-Man comics would get boring pretty quickly.

Dock Ock wanted to change the scientific field with his genius, but ultimately fell victim of his desires. In the original Amazing Spider-Man #3, it very clearly stated that Dock turned evil because the radiation of the nuclear fusion he tried to create changed his brain. So, despite tentacles being a different way of approaching the character, it's still semi accurate to the original idea where the character's bran was under the influence of something else. He was a good guy at the beginning even in the animated series from 1994. And wasn't he also in love with a woman before he became evil? Dock Ock from the movie pushed Spider-Man away when Spidey tried to turn off the fusion engine. That was before he was under the control of tentacles. So that definitely shows that he was ego-driven and careless even before the incident. Nowadays, we could only wish to have a villain like that, where even the liberties that are taken with him still respect what he is in the comics. Is Dock Ock from Spidey 2 a perfect representation of the character? Probably not. Is he a bastardization of the character? No.

And, last of all, Spider-Man 2 is definitely the best example of how to do a Spider-Man movie. It's thirteen years later, and we still haven't gotten a Spider-Man movie that embodies the core concept of the comics as well. The influence of Richard Donner's Superman is irrelevant to bring up, since those movies were the framework for every superhero to come.

Proof that Sam Raimi never read a Green Goblin issue.

Pete has enhanced strength, agility and reactions, it is impossible for him to be clumsy.

I don't hear Stan Lee say otherwise in that clip, he's saying he was a weak nerd, which i don't disagree with.

Superman was clumsy on purpose as a way to cover up that he was Superman, that was the point.

No, after the Spider bite Pete is not particularly insecure (in fact he even asked Liz Allen out before he was Spider-Man).

You are possibly thinking of Ultimate Spider-Man, not 616 Spider-Man

Pete had poor social skills because his parents disappeared when he was a child and because he was raised by elderly relations, he wasn't seen as cool because he was sickly and not athletic, because his family were poor and he didn't look after his appearance, and because his aunt stifled and mothered him. His hobbies were also bookish and nerdy (stygmatised). The way he was treated by people and his troubled upbringing steered him towards resentment naturally.

Becoming Spider-Man made him much more confident and self-assured, his health problems were fixed, he got a job and met new people, used his new income to go out and buy new clothes and later to get himself a nice motorbike. Over time he made friends and started dating Betty Brant, his resentment dissipated and he became a pretty well rounded guy.

Stan Lee Pete actually developed quite naturally IMO, he wasn't just like a perpetual cartoon character.

Nothing in Amazing Spider-Man #3 indicates that Doc Ock was a great guy before the accident, and all subsequent material clearly paints him as an arrogant douchebag with mummy issues and a superiority complex.

Sure you can use Amazing #3 as evidence that the explosion may have given him brain damage, but this was dropped and swept under the carpet almost immediately after that issue, with him just going in and out of jail like any criminal.

I don't care about the 90s animated series. In fact, I would say that Raimi takes more from the 90s animation than the comics anyway. As far as I'm concerned those movies are like Donner's Superman+90s animated Spider-Man combined.

I agree that it is the best Spider-Man movie. I don't think it embodies the character all that well though, but its a well constructed movie with fantastic action sequences, and whilst the main characters are somewhat unrecognisable (Jonah and May were good), the actual plot is straight out of Lee/Ditko comics and the look of the source material is there.

@silent_bomber:

First of all, I thought you weren’t actually talking about Peter being clumsy. I thought you were referring to his child-like nature, inability to be in time all the time and such. And even despite that, Peter Parker was clumsy in the comics, too. Remember this?

Second of all, then what the hell you’re talking about? Are you talking about Peter before he was bitten by a spider? But Stan Lee talks about John Romita Sr., who started drawing Spider-Man when Spider-Man was already a long-lived hero. So Stan Lee acknowledges Peter Parker as a nerd even after Peter got bitten. Because that is the point of Peter Parker; radioactive spider gave him powers, but Peter is still Peter, and he still struggling with his life like he always did. That’s what good about the character in the first place. He’s a superhero with problems. If Peter Parker actually became a perfect machoman like you describing him after he got his powers, he wouldn’t be as interesting.

Third of all, why are we still mentioning Christopher Reeve’s Clark Kent? We already passed that. He wasn’t used as an inspiration for Peter Parker. Sam Raimi talked numerous times about Peter Parker’s nerdiness but he never mentioned Clark Kent and always referred to comics.

This is the scene I was talking about originally:

I know that people hate right now Straczynsky for his later stuff, but this was a great one-shot story, and this bit perfectly exemplifies who is Peter Parker. And I know, Spider-Man 3 is a blasphemy, but even that movie had similar scene during the bit with MJ in the backstage.

And yes, Peter Parker was acting like a pessimistic wuss with complex in the comics, too.

You may hate those films for making such emphasis on that aspect of the character (which I understand, because those tear-jerking scenes in Spider-Man 3 were too much), but calling it an inaccurate portrayal of the character would be a blatant lie.

Is this the kind of "Spider-Dork" you're talking about?

@zhangthong12:

Not really, I was talking about the skinny, high voice version I see in the new cartoons and movies. though the "I'm nothing without you" is pretty pathetic.

@zhangthong12 said:

@combo-man said:

All Spider-Man movies and the modern cartoons are a betrayal of the character, when I was a kid Spider-Man was a Spider-Man! not a spider-beta or a spider-dork, or a Spider-pussy.

Is this the kind of "Spider-Dork" you're talking about?

I love that scene!

Thank you for posting it.

I am going to post it in my Spider-Man/Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson-Parker facebook fan page.

a Russian guy who goes by the name Tyler

Extreme.

@zhangthong12: Great thread.

Define "Nerd"

Peter Parker was interested in nerdy hobbies, sure, that doesn't mean he is riddled with insecurity. I've known piles of nerds who would happily walk over to strangers and start talking about new science exhibits. Zero insecurity.

You've strayed far, far from the original points, those pics do not show Pete as a meek doormat, nor do they show him as a prat-falling clown a la Toby Maguire. Also, Maguire's expressions & mannerisms were just plain off tbh, he was weird.

It's uncanny valley, Tobey doesn't look right in the movies, he looks like a druggie, in all honesty

Rami's movies weren't an accurate interpretation of Spider-Man. The characters and villains were all completely changed. The only one he seemed to get right was Spider-Man himself, but I didn't like Toby in the role.

Peter did have some insecurities in Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's early comics, but they came off differently, and derived from a different source. He did have insecurities about his relationships, but in the comics they were very minor, and in the movies the insecurities were turned up to 11. Being shy and timid was new, because in the comics we saw Pete asking girls out and getting turned down. That wouldn't of worked in the film, because they drastically changed MJ and went with a girl next door trope.

Overall I think the writing faults in the character could of been forgivable if the part was acted better.

@j_tonic: The characters and villains were all completely changed.

I don't how any of the major characters were "completely changed". Like, who was completely changed? The hero? Nope. Same arc as in the comics, same personality traits as in the comics, etc. The supporting cast? Aunt May - straight outta the comics. Uncle Ben - same thing. The villains? Green Goblin - you can't get more accurate than that. The reason why he's viewed as a goofy villain by a lot of people is because he resembles his comic book counterpart, who, besides being terrifying, can be also extremely silly - intentionally or unintentionally. Dock Ock - sardonic scientist, driven by ego, who, after suffering an emotional breakdown, tries to make a break-through in science to prove something to himself. Every one of them resembles their comic book counterparts at least at basic level.

And I know when something is changed when I see it. I'm an Iron Man aficionado, and I sure do see how MCU fundamentally changed a lot of aspects about him and his world. With some, I'm fine with. With others, not so much. But I also love Spider-Man. And I'd be bothered by those complete changes if I saw them in Raimi's movies. By the way, I'm talking strictly 1 and 2, not 3.

Raimi read 60s and 70s Spider-Man and sorta gave up his research after that. He had a very elitist view of Spider-Man that romanticized everything Bronze Age and deemed everything else as worthless, hence why he hated Venom and intentionally sabotaged the character in Spider-Man 3 (Along with the entire Black Suit storyline.) Also, I find it laughable how anyone could say that his Green Goblin was accurate. Raimi tried to do this weird thing where Norman was sometimes really sympathetic and tragic and then sometimes a misogynistic, sadistic monster and it didn't work at all. Had NO basis in the comics.

@zhangthong12: So, I'm curious--as someone who agrees with you on most of those points--what did you think of Homecoming? (I ask as someone who was honestly very disappointed with it.)