I stumbled upon your channel and watched your Invincible breakdown. Just to be in time for this video. Keep up the great content homie I'm gonna binge watch your content.
You're right that people have misconceptions about Stan Lee's run, but it's incorrect to point the finger at the Raimi films for all changes. It's not as though Spider-Man stopped being published after Stan Lee left, nearly 400 more issues of Amazing Spider-Man were released before the first film, plus hundreds of spinoff and guest appearences, and these issues contained many retcons, reframings, and personality changes. Sam Raimi and David Koepp did not invent Uncle Ben telling Peter about responsibility, and it's not "wrong" to not stricly adhere to a small slice of a character's publishing history written nearly 4 decades prior.
@@I_Am_Gassy You're totally right, but for the purpose of this video it was crucial to use Spider-Man 2 as a case study for highlighting all of these misconceptions in a digestable way. As I mentioned at the end, the goal is not to place blame, but to shine on Stan Lee's original work and promote it as THE most reference point for understanding Spider-Man.
@@ImplicitlyPretentious I understand, hope my comment did not seem harsh, just felt like that aspect of the video might confuse people unfamiliar with the character's history. In a way it's actually not easy to create a truly comic inaccurate Spider-Man adaptation, because unless you make him rob banks gleefully and kill Uncle Ben out of boredom, your adaptation will probably be close enough to the way a writer has portrayed him in the mainline comic universe. I hope this video succeeds in convincing people to reexamine the other adaptations, especially Andrew Garfield's.
So neither version has a bad message. There’s only so much you can portray in a roughly 2 hour film. So focusing on Toby’s Peter in the way it does makes sense for Sam’s version for sure. Considering how projects get canceled and rebooted all the time not putting the serialized crime aspect there makes sense. Though it would be nice if other characters were touched on. Speaking of that not sure having too many villains in SM3 was it’s main issue. It had more to do with Raimi not understanding Venom and the studio heads insistence to add this 1 villain muddied it up when it needed different beats for what SR was trying to get across. In some ways Venom works for the story in other way not really. My main issue is the recon of who kills Uncle Ben and what that means.
@Alexp. Yeah this dude has no clue. Steve Ditko made the character, not Stan. And Raimis version is pretty faithful to Ditkos original. Maybe less ”edge” as Peter had some attitude in the original run, but otherwise it seems to understand the character quite well. Unlike the MCU and it’s travesty.
@Christian Björck that’s another thing that bothers me about this video, just completely disregards ditko despite his many contributions to the character
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS SERIES! I love the Raimi films but their effect on changing the perception of Spider-Man is undeniable. I think they get so much of the Spider-Man ethos correct in terms of that struggle between selflessness and selfishness but they forced the character into a box. All of a sudden Spider-man HAS to be miserable or he isn't accurate. He HAS to be driven solely by guilt or he isn't accurate. The Spider-Man of the comics is dynamic and relatable because he grows up and changes and learns and fucks up just like everyone else.
Exactly!! I had a working theory for so long that the Raimi films, good as they were, entirely changed what Spider Man means to a lot of people. Whereas The original Spider Man was about growth and change, everyone now seems to believe That Peter parker has to be miserable and poor and sad to be a good Spider Man,but that really isn't what it's all about.
Yes love the raimi movies. But they are an amalgamation of 616 and Ultimate. Ultimate spidey as fun as it is, isn't like 616. And every spidey fan will admit 616 is peak spidey.
@@sebastianhaney1425 kind of is though for the stan lee run. Todd McFarlane kind of changed it with peter getting married and the potential of him and MJ having kids. For 20 years the character was in limbo of late teen or early 20s.
To me, it depends. Spiderman to me, is the hero of hope. Iron man, Cap, Thor, they can get their asses kicked emotionally and physically. Spiderman is the hero who gets back up and when he gets down, it really means it, like Venom Saga and Gwen’s death.
The biggest problem with the fetishization of the Raimi movies is that it causes people too see anything Spider-Man that's done differently in any other adaptation from the Raimi movies as somehow being untrue to the character. Like the whole premise of the MCU hatred being that Uncle Ben doesn't get enough attention only exists because of those movies
@@jmorales09 It's not, I love when adaptations take their own direction with the character, even if it isn't necessarily to my preference. At the same time though, it's not really the same thing since the comic is the source material, not the raimi movies.
personally, i think you undervalue the impact of ben in the original run(not that raimi didnt overvalue him). he clearly was something core to peter as a person and his journey. i dont think the comic needs to constantly dwell on that one issue to make it important. like you gotta take it in the context of an comic series that needs to constantly be moving forward. of course more time is going to be give to human torch stuff, because that's the content that's ACTIVELY moving peter forward as a character. in his lowest moment here, its thoughts of ben and may that spur him to self realization, not Johnny storm or anyone else. id argue that Raimi and other later works noticed this and built up uncle ben into the character he didn't have the chance to be, plus having him say the line is more powerful then some narration...unless your going to say people should ignore the "great power" line because it was only a footnote? id say the Garfield version tackles this idea the best. even after bens death, it doesn't instantly make him into the super good guy Spiderman, if anything it only gets him to build on that vengeful side of himself, causing him to lash out with his new powers. its not until interacting with other characters, namely chief Stacy and the little boy on the bridge that he really "becomes" Spiderman. but it never stops ben from being the core his ideals are built on. of course, none of the movies are the perfect adaptation. but its only naturally that with the size of the fandom spiderman and now the mcu have attracted that not EVERY person will have read the original comics. everyone in the modern era will have there own "true" spiderman. and just continually annoy those of us who read the these originals for all time lol
I haven't seen it yet cuz I'm waiting to watch it on a friend's birthday, but from what I've heard it sounds like prime meterial for a trauma analysis 😂
Okey really interesting video but i must say that there are a lot things that i dont agree, i know you say that the message and vision the raimi movies have of spider-man is really good, but at the same time in the video you act as if the way the movie depicts spider-man is wrong, we all know that the raimi movies are not an exact copy of the comics, they are an adaptation, a new view of the character, a new story, but retaining most of the important things that make the character what it is, similar to what the ultimate spiderman comics were, a new story, sam raimi didnt make and exact copy of the story, he wanted to make a new version of the story butstill with a good message that fits the character, you talk about a lot of things the comic does rigth and in one way or another, and how the tone changes a lot, from being a comedy to a crime story etc etc, but all does thing wouldnt have fit in a single movie, maybe in a tv show since its longer but not in a single movie, so what sam raimi decided to do with the story was a good thing, it was different, but that isnt bad in anyway, it have to be done to fit this new story and in the movie, it isnt bad at all, its a good change and still have a lot of core elements about spiderman, like the struggles with peter's life, and a lot of other things, something a feel the other movies dont do as good, also the way uncle ben character has been shown to us in the comics have changed a lot through the years, yeah in the first comics he wasnt that important, but in later comics he became more and more important, raimi changed the way dock ock is a lot, but for the better, his version of dock ock is now so iconic and good that even the ps4 version of dock ock is clearly inspired by that version, all of this reminds of me of that line of stan lee in spiderman tas when he meet spider-man "wow you sure arent the same character i have been writting all this years" it just shows that spider-man have change a lot through the years and most of those changes were not really bad, so in some ways this video it looks like you are trying to say that what sam raimi did was wrong "and it wasnt" but then in other parts you say that its just to show the difference with what stan lee and apreciate what he did but saying it like if thats the way it should have been in the movie and the only way that story should have been told, but it wasnt a bad thing that it was different, and even though the andrew and tom storys got some of this things you say rigth, those verisons failed to get a lot more things rigth than wrong when it comes to what the character is, they did more changes for the worst when i feel raimi did more changes for the better when it comes to putting the character in the movie and still having the core elements of the character and still giving a good story that fits spider-man, i think we should admire sam raimi for still being able to translate the character to the movies and this story too
I agree that changes have to be made so the story is optimised for the medium, but I believe those decisions should come from a desire to re-apply the original source material's message and idea. I still love Spider-man 2, but the arrangement of its choices and deviations accumulatively pushes it so far away from Stan Lee's themes that I strongly believe its important to treat the film on its own merits, as opposed to a reference point for everything else. I'm hoping that by highlighting these disparities, people will be interested enough to go back to Stan's original work and appreciate them, then look at other adaptations like PS4 and MCU spidey with a stronger sense of fairness and understanding outside of nostalgia. I'm not saying differences are bad, I say we should look at how those changes impact and relate with the various patterns of ideas the character is built on! :)
@@ImplicitlyPretentious i totally understand what you mean and i agree, but i think that its okey they dcided to go for a new message, specially since it turn out really great and really fits the character and it became so iconic and an isnpiration for a lot of people, and as i said, im sure raimi didnt just took everything from the stan lee comics, he took a lot of things from other spider-man storys and writters and it came up great and manage to capture what spider-man is, anyways, i still get what you mean and what your point was, so yeah, really good video and i really like how you get the message of the original comics, good luck man and keep doing great videos 👍
@@hawaianmobster1579 I really think this video is important to make people still love the Raimi movies (gosh, I really love them and still think Spider-Man 2 is amazing) but come to the conclusion that they're not the main and ultimate view of the character, because a lot of people do that (wich is a little bad thing) and can criticize a lot of adaptions and views of Spider-Man, even if they are being faithful to the source material and doing good changes (what even Raimi did too). But it was really nice to see how you think :)
@@arthurandrey2431 thanks, and yeah i understand, i know the raimi movies are not the main thing to have in mind when doing a new story or adaptation of the character, but i do think the raimi movies are a good example of how to make a good spider-man story and adaptation and how keep the feel of the character and what it represents, spectacular spiderman, and ps4 spiderman are as good examples, on how to do this in the rigth way
@@hawaianmobster1579 Really good examples! I also would say that the MCU Spidey is doing a great job of showing off what Spider-Man represents, but in a more slow way (like Marvel always does) and in the other hand, the Marc Webb movies almost did it but the movies were a little of a mess when working in some important aspects, losing their way.
Bruh, you have been changing my perspective on Peter Parker’s relationship to Spider-Man for months now. I almost feel bad but everything you said makes sense. 😅 I guess the comics I’ve read have had Peter or Spider-Man’s two lives clashing in such a way that everything is going wrong and it just made it seem like Spider-Man is a curse or burden. But that’s clearly not (always) the case and I’m so happy to realize that. Makes the PS4 Spider-Man look even better in retrospect. Even though he had his struggles with the dual lives as well. Not to mention, I didn’t realize how much me and Pete had in common till this video so that’s cool as well.
Very succinct. I think the biggest difference is that Spider-Man 2 tells that Spider-Man No More story at a time where Peter is more immature. I wouldn't call it un-Spidey but just a take where they made him less mature and more introspective and self-sympathizing because of it. The original No More story was very much a product of the Romita run at a time where Peter underwent a huge deal of growth in self-esteem and social status, where the Raimi films held much more onto Ditko's characterisation for Peter, obviously aside from the greater inclusion of characters like Uncle Ben and the inclusion of MJ and Harry which are very Romita. I think as far as this adaptation goes, it works on its own two feet and is in no way a betrayal of the original source material, however, I really appreciate that you bring Raimi fans such as myself back down to Earth in that each film version of Spidey has its accuracies and deviations from the source material, each of which have their own stories to tell. (Which is also really helpful as I'm as fan of both Raimi and MCU Spidey and some folks just can't fathom that).
Very well said Pup. Im with you on enjoying multiple iterations. i love both Raimi and Webb films but my personal favorite is Tom Holland but i grew up on them all technically.
Great comment pup. I'm a huge fan of all three live action interpretations of the character, so I'm definitely in the minority lol. I love how distinct they all are with the stories they tell and where their focus lies and I don't think any of them are definitive. However, with Far From Home being my favorite iteration of the character from the films and having what I want to see most from Peter Parker, it's proof that the MCU Spider-Man can be awesome when he's written properly. Still, I love all the things Raimi, Webb, and Watts get right about the character, and honestly, they all do a great job.
I didn't mind Civil War MCU Spidey. I really didn't like Homecoming as a movie though. It felt like it was taking a crap on Peter, just because it could. It created huge inconsistencies. He's competent in Germany, but somehow not in his native New York. The suit redesign especially bothered me. Return of the back tick. Dull webbing. Teensy-Weensy chest spider. Baby eyes. Can't do anything right without Iron Man's help. Those for me were all a hard no. I could tolerate what they did with Ned and MJ; but then ramming Iron Man down our throats like that, and never even mentioning Ben, felt like betrayals. Awkward as the Garfield movies were, I wanted them to recover and do better. The second one's rushed ending was a disgrace; but a third film could've redeemed the series. I liked the idea of a kale-munching hipster Spidey, even if his first movie costume having yellow eyes was a big turn-off.
Agreed. I actually was a Raimi stan for a long time. I thought Tobey's Spider-Man was THE Spider-Man and anything else was trash. Last summer I watched every Spider-Man movie because I wanted to not be a bias fan boy. While I still enjoy Raimi's the best, I will say that I was wrong about MCU Spider-Man (Far From Home was spectacular) and I can enjoy certain elements from Amazing Spider-Man 2 as well. Each have their own style and take inspiration from different parts of the comics. All this to say, let Spider-Man be Spider-Man and enjoy whatever version you enjoy.
I just had a talk with a coworker yesterday about this. Saying how Garfield and Holland’s Spider-men are closer. The Raimi Spider-man is closer to the 90s cartoon. Probably every episode he talked about Ben and that line. I think that’s were they got it from for the Raimi movies.
I don’t think Sam’s interpretation of Spider-Man is lesser due to the inaccuracy, so much as it is it’s own take on the character. Though I find it annoying that people judge all versions of Spidey by Raimi’s like it’s a fundamental part of the character
I would say raimi's version is actually pretty accurate, just not to Stan lee's run, its honestly a lot like Gerry Conway's run with the overbearing guilt, and soap opera tone,
@@chance4827 tbh I never cared about comic accurate movies. It's only a problem when it's a subjectively bad idea. (I.e Adam Warlock never fighting Thanos basically making him useless to the plot )
@Change, it’s not so much that the inaccuracy bugs us, but the fact that they missed the point of the character in the MCU, Spider-Man never wanted to be spider-man, but he is responsible, he has to be Spider-Man, in these movies, his motivations are completely different to The Spider-Man I know and love, (Also, I’m not a Raimi fan boy, those movies are goofy as fuck)
I think one thing people need to understand when talking about the cinematic Spider-man movies is that none of them are completely accurate to the Comic Book version and each make substantial changes to the character and his arc. Heck even Miles Morales from into the Spider-verse had some major changes from the version in the comics. One big thing I none of the films did and i don't think ever will is showing how Peter Parker before Spider-man was a vengeful guy who was out against the world. I don't think these changes are necessarily a problem, but it does make me role my eyes when I see people try to argue what film is more comic accurate as a reason why one series is better than the other when each series strays away form the comics in a major way.
People stay talking about the amazing spiderman and how he shouldn't have been hunting after the criminals, but that's litterally what he does in the comics. Wack
@@candycorn4912 I agree also unpopular opinion the amazing spiderman first movie suit is actually my favorite suit it just looks unique but not straying away from the look of spiderman and honestly it makes me appreciate the second suit a bit more because it show a contrast to how he started out
"Spider man isn't about how noble it is to hold on and stay the same. It's about the importance of changing your funsamental attitude with others when you hit a certain point in life" Well said. Spider man stories as whole are basically a coming of age story, showing a kid not just becoming a super hero but also growing into a mature and responsible man. I think this theme was even explored in the Spectacular Spider Man through the differences between Peter and Norman Osborn. In the series, Osborn main catchphrase is "Don't apologize. I never do", which represents his arrogance and refusal to recognize his mistakes. This "never apologize" is the polar opposite of Peter journey, who learns from his mistakes and change to a better person.
@@swanpride Yup. Captain America is the inspirational hero, the one people want to be like while Spider man is the relatable one, the one who represents the kid growing into the hero that fans want to be.
Spiderman 2 is not about staying the same. The ending of the movie is him finally getting with Maryjane. A massive change considering he's spent the whole movie convinced he has to pick spider-man or true love The movie is about how important it is to do the right thing, even if you have to give up your dreams. Not to say dreams can't come true or you can't change or be happy- the ending of the movie makes it clear you can have your cake and eat it too....
@@Courier_333 I got this and is a important and wonderful message. However I think the movie contradicts itself by having Peter and MJ together, so basically he didn't need to give his dream to be spider man (the right thing). Also, while I'm not against Peter and MJ being together, having her be his first and only love in the franchise really goes against Spider man theme, that life not always goes in the way the person expected. Peter plans are not always successful and things not always go the way he wants but, through his optimism, he is able to find the positives in this situation and evolve from them. Compare Peter and MJ situation with Peter and Betty Brant, his first love in the Stan Lee and Steve Ditko run. When Betty start dating and eventually was engage to Ned Leeds, Peter became a little disapointed but eventually accepted her decision to move onm recognizing that Betty was happy with Ned and that his attraction to her was no longer the same, with Peter find new love in girls like Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane (who in the first issues was mysterious girl who Peter didn't even wanted to meet due to his aunt trying to force him to go on a date with her, making their future romance much more ironic and surprising). Just like Betty, Peter moved on with his life as well and was still to find love in someone else.
All I can say is thank you for making these videos, bc if you didn't my dumb brain wouldn't understand a lot of the themes in that said movie. As well as other stuff XD
I'm really hoping we get three trilogies with Holland's Spider-Man. The 'Home' Trilogy and then two more that represent the different phases of his life. We're in the sitcom phase for now, which 'No Way Home' looks like it's gonna be transitioning from. Then we'll get the Melodrama phase in the next trilogy, and then an all-out crime saga for the final trilogy, which will likely inevitably end Ultimate Spider-Man style and give way for Miles Morales, which they're clearly aiming for.
Nine separate movies does seem like over kill, 5 or 6 at most would be fine. I think after NWH comes out, if Sony still let's Tom Holland's Spiderman be used in the MCU, we're gonna see more of Peter in his young adult phase, where more social aspects collide with his life as a hero, while also taking larger roles as a main hero in the universe. That's what I'm hoping for, but who knows with how the Sony contract might play out.
When looking at Peter's arc within the MCU, it's becoming more apparent how those movies are heavily based on the early works of Stan Lee and the different phases Peter had as he grew up. In _Homecoming,_ Peter was still a boy. He's going around solving low level crimes, he's immature, impatient, childish, and very new to everything. His double life isn't dramatic, it's comedic. He keeps losing his backpack, he gets caught in his Spidey suit, his shenanigans lead him to getting detention, and had his suit taken away like a parent taking away their kids phone. The world isn't beating him to the ground, and his sense of self worth as a hero is based on the Avengers (mostly Tony Stark). It isn't until he's in the rubble that he starts to look inward calling on his strength as Spider-man to save himself because he isn't defined by a fancy suit, he's defined by his actions. In _Far From Home_ Peter is starting to fully transition out of boyhood and becomes a young man. He has let go of his first crush and has moved onto a new love he finds in MJ, not because of how she looks or vague descriptions of her just being "the best", but because he likes who she is as a person. He is now in a world where the heroes are scattered as the Avengers appear to be disbanded after the 5 year gap and the events of _Endgame._ But he's still trying to hold onto a few things by looking for some other hero to look up to so he can have guidance. He has grown out of his desire to be in the big leagues because he's seen the kind of struggle that brings, and his self doubt makes him feel like he isn't up to the challenge. He isn't quitting being Spider-man out of fear, he is just trying to remain the rookie he was when Tony first recruited him because the times were much simpler back than (we've all had moments when we wish we could go back to being kids, less responsibilities, etc). It isn't until he learns Mysterio is a fraud and is given words of affirmation from Happy regarding the pedestal the world (Peter included) put Tony on, that he rises to the challenge and proves his capabilities not only to others, but to himself. He wasn't alongside other heroes facing the drone army, he was on his own, he used his own intuition, and his own abilities to save the day. From what we can see from _No Way Home,_ Peter's life is becoming more and more dramatic. The consequences he faces have gone from detention to being framed for murder. His double life is now becoming more conflicting as he tries to hang onto the few good things he's gotten (I have a feeling the end of the movie will have Strange complete the spell properly and the entire world forgets his identity, including his friends and Aunt May). He even starts to step away from saying "sir" because he is no longer the rookie. He has proven his worth and his place among the hero community, he is facing bigger enemies, and he is facing it alone (for the most part) There is a clear arc for MCU Peter as we watch him grow from a boy to a (spider-)man, and it's annoying when everyone keeps calling him "iron-boy jr" because he wasn't in his prime (both physically and emotionally) immediately after becoming Spider-man. While I do disagree with some details, the tone and arc of these movies is awesome
Well I think Sam’s Spidey is like Tim’s Batman it isn’t completely comic accurate but instead it reinvents the character so much and so well people believe that the original comics were just like how the movies are
I don’t think there’s enough of a through line between movies to define his storyline as an arc. He’s mostly the product of Tony’s arc throughout the infinity saga and now that that’s over, he going to be the product of the upcoming Dr. strange movie. He has yet to have an identity outside of other heroes.
Peter's over arching characte arc is the transition toward maturity. I think it will be PETER that finally says the iconic quote, "with great power comes great responsibility"; to himself. Peter must come to this relization himself to become an adult. Real maturity IS about accepting our responsibilities to others. No one can impart maturity, just help guide someone to that transition. The No Way Home trailer has Dr. Strange telling Peter that his double life is unsustainable. I think Peter will have to let go of his 'secret' identity and reconcile that he, Perter Parker, IS Spiderman. RDJ sort of set the entire tone of the MCU ditching superhero secret identities with one improvised line and the theme of personal identity has permeated every subsequent film since.
I know it's a simple short-hand to say that Stan Lee "wrote" all of these issues, but from everything we know about the "Marvel Method," and all the controversies that surround Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko and who created/wrote WHAT at Marvel, we should at least acknowledge that "Lee & Ditko" should be credited as writing the issues, and "Lee & Romita" credited with the others.
Seriously, thank you for this. I hate it when people complain about the newer Spidey movies because they're "not Spider-Man" when they have no context for what Spider-Man really is. I mean, he's a character that's been around for 60 years, he's been a heck of a lot of things, lol. The dogmatic devotion to the Raimi films really does come off as a reaction to backlash against them. Just as you said, it's perfectly OK to like them or love them, but to claim you do because they are more "true" to Spider-Man is just misguided.
I have read every single issue of Amazing Spider-Man and have been a huge fan for over 30 years. So I have PLENTY of context! And anyone that argues that the MCU Spidey is more true than the Raimi films (or even close to equal) is either ignorant or in denial. And I don't hate the MCU movies, I love Tom Holland. The Raimi movies may not have been identical to the comics but by god they were more accurate than I expected and still the most accurate on screen version of Spidey we have seen outside maybe the 90's animated show. I also love the Garfield movies. I love the Raimi movies most because 1. They are better movies. 2. Because they are the closest version of Spider-Man out of all the movies.
Funny how nobody seems to mention the 90s animated series considering its the first place where ben said his great power line. Having grown up watching that series before the raimi movies i can say clearly that the raimi films are far more accurate than the mcu films simply by the fact that peter idolized iron man in those movies.
Also people needs to realize this not being comic accurate does not mean an end product is bad. Specially because this characters are more than just stories now. They are important icons. And writers would wanna try their vision on them you like it or not. İn my opinion only limit to these stories should be that it needs to protect the core of their character and even that can be subjective at times. For example I hate Zack Synder's take on Batman. I do think his take doesn't protect his core at all and ı would even argue about it. But ı see some can see it in a different way. For some his or her view on Batman is different and he enjoys it. Now what? This is the world we living in a world with different minds and different views. And in the end of the day you need to respect those views(if they don't hurt anybody... ı will write this just in case.) For me the core of Spider-man is that he is a relatable super hero that can just be us. A fan boy, a kid who just wants adventure, An adult trying to look for his family, A young adult who tries to understand how to live all by his or herself. You know everyone can wear the mask. And not just that but his stories are about growth. And with that his stories are showing different kinds of ideas and concepts about growth. Responsibilty to Fear of living up to some one to being able to manage all parts of your life and more and all can give different answers. Concepts and stories are limitless. And also this was an amazing video!
I would say that Zack’s Batman is in the fallen hero category and especially when in bvs Alfred mentions how much Bruce has changed into a more hardened, cold, violent person and how it’s not right for him to do the things that he’s doing in the film.
@@legoben98productions My Problem was we never saw the normal version of this take. Funny enough This batman's simple origin is given but his hero years is not so when we saw it on bvs it feels like this is what the normal version of this character. Basically ı can't compare the fallen hero if ı never knew the hero.
No hate intended but watching this really just conveyed to me that raimi really did understand the character and how to translate it into a different medium. Peter is smart at the start of the movie, he spouts random facts and no one cares, he gains powers and now has the ability to be a selfish douchebag, uncle Ben’s death brought him back down to earth, like an anchor. In Spider-Man two uncle Ben’s message is even further solidified. The plot points are made more subtle because it’s a movie and there are no thought bubbles. He didn’t want to just outright state the characters motivations because that would be dumb and not as impactful
Where does he say that the points need to be super obvious? Besides in the movie they are incredibly obvious. He has a literal prophet like dream with his uncle Ben. That shits pretty on the nose. He’s saying the the movie isn’t comic accurate. It’s a different character, that’s fine. It’s still a good take. But saying he “understood the character” is wrong. He made his own version of the character with the aspects he thought were important as well as making new ones. It wasn’t comic accurate, and it wasn’t meant to be.
@@yourfatboy5359 based off what? I don’t like mcu Peter because I don’t enjoy Tom Holland’s portrayal of him, plain and simple if u do that’s fine. I’m just stating opinions here. U seem like the type of guy to hate on people for doing that.
This. This is exactly why I like Tom Holland’s spider-man. He’s growing up like any other kid rather than the previous two who were growing up, but seemed to already be there already.
The other ones did grow up too normaly, they just did it faster because it wasnt like today that they leave almost everything to other movies and sequels, back then they created a story with the character evolving, learning and growing up, the end, and then if they can thet make a sequel and in that sequel he learns new things, now they want to put most of the development of the characters in the sequel, for me that feels like a waste of time and really looks inconvenient, its too slow and they feel like they have all the time and oportunities in the world to just do it later in a sequel or not do it at all
Tom Holland’s movies had little to no growth. I never felt any change in character and anything Peter did had zero consequences compared to the raimi’s trilogy. I feel that the essence of being Spider-Man is that it isn’t fun to be Spider-Man. He is relatable in a way that he has a life filled with consequences. I see Tobey’s Spider-Man and I think that he has it rough man. I can relate to that. I see Tom Holland’s Spider-Man and all I think about is how cool it would be if I were in his shoes. I mean the new movies are fun and all but as a movie, the Sam raimi Spider-Man were more enjoyable for me.
@@playerone4715 but thats the point, spiderman is supposed to be like captain america, a shining beacon of hope, not to be a beacon of "damn im sad", dont get me wrong i love the raimi trilogy, but i think with everything happening on spiderman media, i think it just gets too much credit to the point noone would like to see another spiderman movie becuase it isnt made my sam raimi and isnt set in the raimiverse
@@joaquinthecactusman5742 Nah, I see where you’re coming from but I disagree with your first point. Spider-Man was originally created by Stan Lee as a hero who is relatable. Back then, heroes were viewed as unattainable perfection. They were too “perfect”. Nothing wrong with a bit of escapism but it was about time to make a character that resonates with the audience. Stan Lee decided that just like average people, Peter would have a lot of problems. He had a tough time getting a girl, he had financial problems, he had friend problems, he had his parental problems etc. This is something that the average joe could relate to. Spider-Man was a beacon of hope not because of how perfect he is but because of how he chooses to be Spider-Man despite the problem it brings. No matter how badly Spider-Man causes Peter trouble, he still chooses to put on the mantle cause he believes it’s the right thing to do. That is the key to Spider-Man’s inspiration. Not by how great Spider-Man’s life is but by how tough it is. Being Spider-Man is the symbolic representation of doing the right thing. No matter the consequence of the ‘right thing’ we ought to do it.
@@playerone4715 yeah i like consequences and problems like that, the mcu peter have personal problems too, its not as big as raimis but there still is, all im saying is that people like to gloss over that and hate the mcu spiderman because of bias but i do agree with you with relatable spiderman, mcu spiderman is relatable in a diffirent way, its more of a child becoming a superhero relatable, his arc is making the ironBOY to a spiderMAN that kind of relatable
I don't think characters should be held to the same characterizations they were introduced with, like you imply in this video. Especially when you have a character that's decades old. Growth and rebirth is common thing with comic book characters, like Batman. Batman has been "remade", going through many iterations that apply the same principles (Bruce Wayne, orphan boy, trains his skills, Batman) but vary drastically in tone and story. And that's what Sam Raimi did with his trilogy. He made a different Spider-Man, one that could represent the themes he wanted to tell and not contained to the OG run. And the fact that his interpretation still stands as the baseline today shows how strong his stories were and how influential those movies are.
I think I can agree with you partially, I also don't think characters have to be held to the same characterization. However, I think what the video is trying to imply (haha) is that Sam Rami's films have replaced what was the original arc for Spider-Man into something popular, yes, but also as of writing this a replacement for the what the character was originally about. The problem isn't changing the the character to suit a new age or narrative, thats not what the video is trying to say. The problem that is being addressed is the people saying the Rami movies should be highest standard on the characterization of Spider-Man when it could be argued that the original comic books, which aren't being represented in the movies, should be the baseline. Then, these same people will stomp and scream (not all, but the ones who do, do it loudly) when other Spider-Man media does not live up to the principles of the Rami movies, even though those movies are in themselves changing the original portrayal of the character. Its hypocritical, to say the least and for those who think its what Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wanted for the character are just ignorant. Though I should say that, like all art, comic books are subjective.
I’m honestly really glad for this video. Mostly because what you say is right, how you should be respectful to every interpretation of Spider-Man. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Raimi trilogy. Only a lot of the more toxic Raimi fans always seem to talk down to the fans of Garfield and Holland Spider-Man under the guise of saying that they are not “the definitive Spider-Man”. Either because Garfield is “too cocky” or “too confident” to be Peter Parker. Or because Holland doesn’t mention Uncle Ben which gives him that annoying “Iron Boy Jr” nickname. It’s heartbreaking to see some fans act so hateful to each other over which Spider-Man is the best, when we should just cherish how much media we have of the webslinger. It’s not that I’m glad that Spider-Man 2 was showed to be flawed in the video. I’m glad that the movie is brought down to Earth, seen more as another interpretation instead of a Holy Bible of who Spider-Man truly is like some fans seem to believe. But yeah. I really should read Stan Lee’s comic run of Spider-Man. It honestly sounds like an interesting read after watching this video.
That's a good point you made. It's not that the Raimi trilogy is flawed simply for using another interpretation for Spider-Man as a character, it's that it has been canonized into something that it is not. An infallible portrayal of Stan Lee's character that is the holy grail. It's simply another take on the character, but too many fans of the original trilogy fail to understand that.
@@ebenade1 Frankly, the issues I have with the Raimi trilogy have little to do with the interpretation of the character, but with the all over the place quality of the acting, the predictable plotting and the fact that they are basically telling the same story three times, resetting the character at every opportunity. Oh and the flags. I really can't watch that thing withoutout laughing about the ridiculous flags.
This is something that I truly believe. Spider-Man is more than one character he is a template for people to create their own characters. Tom Holland is my favorite because we got to see the character arc of Peter Parker changing through phases of his life and grow into the role of Spider-Man. When we first see Peter in Civil War he is both very nervous to meet Iron Man in person and during the plane fight we can tell that he doesn't actually want to hurt anyone on Captain America's team. Homecoming is about him learning that he doesn't need to be recognized as a big time Avenger to help people, Tony takse away the Stark suit but he still defeats the Vulture in his homemade suit and Toomes respects him. Infinity War and Endgame show him working alongside Tony and Doctor Strange as equals but in his mind he fails here first because he died without stopping Thanos from killing half the universe and then because he couldn't save them without losing Tony. Far From Home is the result of him feeling like a failure Nick Fury knows that he is ready to be an Avenger but Peter doesn't believe it himself which is why he believed giving EDITH to Mysterio was the responsible thing to do and when he discovers Beck is a villain he immediately tries to warn Fury and take the glasses back
Ah, Rosie I love this boy! This is a very brilliant summary of MCU Spider-Man’s character arc, which is very interesting. And one that perfectly mirrors the Lee/Ditko era Spidey in his high school years, finding his place in a world populated by other big time superheroes. Johnny Storm/Human Torch was Peter’s idol and role model and has always been the first superhero he’d ever compare himself to when doubting himself as a superhero. The same goes for the MCU Spider-Man. MCU Peter has always looked up to Tony Stark/Iron Man and saw him as a role model and someone he wishes he was as popular as. And in times of quitting, both Peters learned that even the superheroes they grew up idolizing have flaws, imperfections, and aren’t perfect. And upon learning that, he always immediately regains the motivation to put on the mask again, go back out there, and try his best. MCU Spider-Man is actually way more brilliant than people give him credit for.
@@thebestofthebest5724 They MCU films are more faithful to Stan's original first 100 issue run than Raimi's. Raimi's movies just shaped the idea of what Spider-man should be in most people's heads because their reach.
What I know about spider man is that he suffers. Peter questions staying spider-man a lot of times throughout the 60’s and 70’s. And I get the impression that in some way, Spider-Man 2 adapts both the Spider-Man no more arc and the If this be my Destiny arc, where the weight of being Spider-Man is shown as being more emotional than the physical weight shown in ASM 33. In that arc Peter is directly responsible for May getting sick, his friends all think he is a dismissive jerk, and it all culminates in him throwing off that massive weight to continue fighting. Spider-Man 2 carries the spirit of those books more than it does “Spider-Man no more.” It also takes from the first appearance of the Sinister Six and that four armed arc against morbius as well. I love spider-man 2 a lot. Watching Peter get dumped on in every conceivable way and still decide to be Spider-Man is, *chef’s kiss* wonderful. And I do think the burning apartment sequence does do a good job to show how Spider-Man needs to act. It’s heartbreaking to hear, and as Peter realizes that he let someone die for his own selfishness is phenomenal. I know it’s different from Lee’s run, but I cannot say it is not Spider-man. I am glad the other films are getting more credit for accurately adapting Peter though. Peter is a pretty immature jerk sometimes.
This video really reinforces my belief that some hybrid of our three film adaptations of SM would be perfect. They all tackle a different aspect of the original work and make it the biggest part of their respective films
I still believe That Spider-Man 2 is The MOST "Spider-Man" Spider-Man film. Yes, you are right that It doesn't encapsulate Stan's Peter but it still represents aspects, but not just Aspects of Stan's but aspects of Stern's, Conway's, and even DeMatteis. The world lends itself to the retro 60s aesthetics reminiscent of the Original Cartoon but also draws influences from ALL of Spider-Man's stories. Another aspect is that the No More storyline is really half of the film, with the other half being dedicated to the philosophical dichotomy of Octavius and Peter. Even this aspect pulls from other comics Like "If This Be My Destiny" being seen in the train scene which I believe Thematically is done better here than in Homecoming, even using aunt May to tie together both themes of "Holding On" to what's most important, which I believe is What makes this the most important Spider-Man Film. Spider-Man is Responsibility driven, philosophically no matter what disparity or challenge peter comes across whether it pertains to him or not if he has the ability to help it is his upmost duty to do so, even if he has to give up what he wants le most even his dreams. Back to Octavius, He mirrors Peter as He is unwilling to make the sacrifice that Peter makes everyday, unwilling to use his powers responsibly as he would need to give up what HE values most. To Octavius he WAS "Holding On" like Peter, but the difference is to what; When Peter lost his powers he lost his reason for responsibility so he let go of them and with that he let go of Uncle Ben, his Moral Center. With Octavius He lost his Moral Center with Rosie but held onto His dreams, and with dreams comes power, Leaving Octavius with all the power but no responsibility and Peter with No Power and all the responsibility that He chooses to ignore, Two similar men that lead down two different pasts. The reason I see this as the MOST "Spider-Man" Spider-Man Film is that even through all the decades and all the writers one thing has persisted with the character and has been there since Issue #1, "With Great Power, there MUST also come Great Responsibility, and that is no more prevalent than with Spider-Man 2.
Raimi was just finding a way to incorporate what he loved about the mytho's . cant be a play by play...Raimi made a cinematic love letter to how he see's spiderman . i love this video...peter parkers characterisation varies based on the iteration. He was more of a jerk in the 90's animated series...and he's more earnest and pure hearted in the spectacular spiderman. Depends on your interpretation as a reader...and also the people writing him at the time..but its true...peter does have a jerky/ selfish side...if you look at the character's entire history...his true struggle might really be about self improvement which just so happens to entail being more responsible with the great power fate has cursed or blessed him with. Hail cthulu
@@Frogman1212 Thats no problem but it seem that is the main use of shitting on other spiderman incarnations because they aren't sucking off uncle ben all day like the raimi one
@@xXSonTJXx the thing is, uncle ben became more important in later spiderman comics even previous to the raimi movies, so uncle ben became a really important character not just because of sam raimi, raimi just managed to reach a lot of more people with this movies the importance the character have, and know to this day uncle ben should be relevant because of all the importance he gained through the years thats why it doesnt feel rigtb tha the mcu doesnt give the character the relevance it deserves
For y'all to say that Peter letting go of being spider-man because people are essentially mean to him or because he gets tired it, is a better depiction of spider-man is crazy 😂. Peter letting go of spider-man because it's affecting his personal life on a critical level is far more relatable and understandable.
Everyone says that MCU Spider-Man isn’t comic accurate when the sam ones aren’t as well that doesn’t mean neither is worse than the other, I’m like you I like sams interpretation but doesn’t mean MCU is so bad
Being ridiculed for doing what you do and having the thought to quit is still relatable. People may not know it, because with negative emotions, someone says something negative can get to them really badly, these kinds of things are more relatable to people dealing with having negative thoughts with their surroundings.
actually him quitting being Spider-Man because of constantly being treated like crap and he gets tired of it, is relatable too. It's part of why many people quit being youtubers or other public figures deleting their online accounts because it becomes tiresome to do something if all the result of that is, is people constantly treating you like crap
He stopped being Spider-Man because he was losing his powers, nearly losing every job he got, lost his girl and countless more. This dudes misinterpreted Spiderman's struggle in the movie so hard. So what if uncle Ben wasn't too much of an anchor in the comic? It was a better change and it gave him far more depth one would expect from Spider-Man.
This is what I love about Spider-Man stories, neither are bad they’re just different. There’s different interpretations of the story for different people.
Yes andrew Garfield's spiderman/peter parker is comic accurate (been saying that for years) His beginning his uncle and all of that i can go on and on but im pretty sure you understand now
Being comic accurate doesn't change the fact that it's a poorly made movie. It's cool if you like it and disagree, but more things should matter in a film than accuracy
I very much enjoyed this video. As someone that has grown up with the Raimi trilogy and someone that has grown up with Spider-Man, I’ve always wanted to know the differences because I’ve always found it hard to acknowledge which movie version I should like when I’ve ultimately come to the conclusion that I like all of them. Each of them have strong merits, but I’ve always been drawn to the MCU Spider-Man more. I don’t know, but there is just something that you’ve said in these videos that have helped me reaffirm my stance of just liking the character in general and helped me reaffirm my desire to like all versions of Spider-Man. I can’t wait for the next part of this series.
This is a really great video. I honestly don’t think this makes Spider-Man 2 a lesser film at all. I think they make the concept work, although I can’t help but love the true meaning of Spider-Man giving up his characters in the comics- as you said, his life doesn’t actually improve, but the crime world does, it grows. Also what you said about uncle Ben was actually pretty great. This is definitely a hard video for a Raimi fan, but I can’t help but agree with what you say. Overall, both the comic and the film are great imo. But yeah, Spider-Man 2 isn’t a perfect adaptation of the story, or even the comics as a whole. I honestly feel like the trilogy more or less gets the character right😳 although all in all, you can’t beat the source material 😎
I still don't see how his life improved when he stopped being Spider-Man. I mean he was able to catch up with his university and aunt may forgave him, but let's be real she was gonna forgive him anyway. Other than that, quitting the mantle of Spider-Man still left him with a dead end job, late on rent, mj was still going to get married to someone else and harry still hated him. I get that after he throws the costume away they try to have a happy montages of him walking around, but his life never really became better when he stopped being Spider-Man.
@@junaydfisher211 I think it was mainly to do with the school stuff and the fact that he could at least attempt to be there for MJ. But looking back on it, they didn’t dive too much into it ig
I have been completely unaware of various Spider-Man fan factions up until now. ... and I think I'll go back to being unaware of them. Dr. Strange, sir? I have a request!
That’s the one thing I wish more people realized about the original run. Peter was a jerk. Before and after he got powers. He was a petty spiteful vengeful jerk. Being Spider-Man didn’t make him a hero. It was uncle ben’s death that made him realize the consequences of his actions. Spider-Man’s origin is a warning almost. Not an aspirational tale of a hero getting powers and doing good.
It' s bullshit,peter before obtaining the superpowers was a normal boy, marginalized and bullied by his peers whom he rightly detested.Calling him a jerk just because he wanted to be respected by those who mocked him or because he gave more importance to his family than the whole world shows how much hypocrisy there is among people.Many people in the same position as peter would think the same way, but that doesn't make them jerks but only human.Peter is just a self-centered, immature teenager who gets his head high about the superpowers he's got, but still remains a nice guy who doesn't make fun of others for no reason.The real asshole is Flash, and to say that peter is an asshole would be like putting them on the same level, but the truth is that Flash is thousand times worse.
It's very interesting the fact that everybody always say that Tobey's and Holland's spidermen are the most accurate and yet thematically everything you mentioned is exactly what Andrew's Spiderman is about, actually the main differences you pointed out are the differences between Raimi's and Webb's Spiderman movies.
It's curious, but every once in a while I go back to read the Lee run and it's some of the most fun I ever have with these stories. Glad to know there's always something new to identify each visit like you pont it out.
I’ve always imagined a live action adaptation of Lee and Ditko’s Spider-Man taking place in the 1960’s instead of the modern day like we’ve always had with every Spider-Man film over the years. That would be cool and refreshing to see.
Would be more true to Ditko’s character no doubt. Stan had nothing to do with the character though. Stan was bit of a hack that took credit for artists works.
I think its not taken into the account the fact that Spider-Man 2 borrowed from Amazing Spiderman #50 and Amazing Spiderman Annual #1 where Peter temporarily loses his powers due to wishing he didnt have them. Spiderman 2 combines these two stories
Exactly how do you loose biological powers by wishing them away. That's like saying you can wish your arm away by simply not liking it. His powers aren't magical you know
But those two are completely different storylines with no similarities to mix that's the point Even if he want to be Spider-Man he can't because his powers are gone I know he blabbers about it in comics but since this version is not talkative you never know what is happening that's what makes raimi movies mid because their Peter is so mid
@@lukeskywalker9506 almost forgot about this comment 😂. Get ur point about raimi peter being too silent but mixing comic storyline is a common thing like Iron Man 2 with Demon in the Bottle and Armor wars. Plus TASM 50 and TASM annual 1 both deal with a similar issue, being Peter wishing he wasn't Spiderman
Spidey does change in the Raimi movies. He definitely matures especially over Spiderman 2 and Spiderman 2 sets him up for his hubris in Spiderman 3. You can enjoy them both for their take on the Webslinger, and no one has ever said that the Raimi films aren't "Raimi's interpretation". People think they're closer to Stan Lee's vision than others but however true that may or may not be doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
In my opinion, the differences between the three live action Spider-Men and Stan Lee's Spider-Man are what makes the movies interesting. Each version goes through different personal problems, therefore giving a new perspective each time and allowing for some sort of relatability. It's almost like opening the character up to more people. Obviously we all have our preferences, but where the comics are one continuous story with different arcs that may collide, the movies offer more confined arcs with less of the continuity.
Cool stuff, but your rant about how the Raimi movies transformed the role of Uncle Ben is partially incorrect. While the movies may have popularized it, Ben's role into a Jesus like figure really started with the Ultimate Spider-Man comics.
This video makes it seem that the sam raimi trilogy was the only series that glorifies uncle ben. But in reality uncle Ben has been glorified multiple times way before the sam raimi trilogy came out
It’s ironic that Sam Raimi was brought to directing the movies because he was a massive Spider-Man fan who owned tons of the old comics, but his films deviate from them. Could maybe be someone like Alvin Sargent since he was the main screenwriter for 2. Maybe he didn’t read the comics or Raimi was cool with this new vision even though he should have known it will change things.
I can commend the amount of effort that went into this video but the ideas it conveys are disingenuous 1. MJ deciding to stay with Peter no matter the risk is taken directly out of a story by Gerry Conway (one of the greatest Spider-Man writers of all time) called Amazing Spider-Man Parallel Lives which explores well..the parallels between Peter and MJ’s live’s, what brings them together, what brings them apart. Much like the Raimi films, Peter is conflicted about being with MJ because of the danger and fear it could inflict on her and people closest to him, but mj tells him that if he continues to live/think like that, he’ll only be half-alive, half of himself, Raimi did an incredible job when it came to adapting this story and I don’t think it’s comparable to Peter and Betty’s relationship in the ditko run as it’s a very different dynamic we’re working with. 2. Not only is Ben mentioned more than 3 times in ditko’s run (he’s even mentioned more than once in ASM #1 which you use in the video) I’m surprised you didn’t talk much about The final chapter of the master planner arc which is a very pivotal moment in Lee’s run that showcases ben’s importance and how it ties into Peter’s resolve to lift the rubble in order to save may, and if we look past just the first 100 issues, in ASM #181 Peter declares that Spider-Man only exists because of Ben Parker and that as long as Spider-Man lives, ben’s memory is being honoured, I’d also suggest reading ASM #-1 as that entire story’s message is that peter engulfing himself in the world of comic books and superheroes makes him forget the true heroes/people he has in his life like uncle Ben. I get that you’re sole focus is on the ditko run but you’re spreading misinformation on the comics as a whole, bens importance is something that’s been part of the character’s mythos decades before the Raimi films, they didn’t inflate his importance, I’d actually argue the comics have emphasized his importance more than any adaptation. It’s also worth noting the Spider-Man vs Wolverine storyline in the 80s does indeed confirm Ben said the line, this wasn’t influenced by other Spider-Man media. They took influence from the comics themselves 3. A newspaper showing “Crime up by 75%” and showing crime running rampant in the city is not vague at all, it’s not the same as the kingpin and criminal underworld taking this opportunity to rise up but it conveys the same message very clearly and writing off the individuals being negatively affected by Spider-Man’s absence as “randos” can be used against the old people, handicapped people and infants that got robbed in ASM #50, both are there to serve the same purpose, that people need Spider-Man. 4. Spider-Man 2 slowly shows us that Peter not being Spider-Man doesn’t make much of a difference just as ASM #50 does, before he even becomes Spider-Man again, he’s still not happy with the way things are, hence why we have peter pondering at his window after the burning building scene “am I not supposed to have what I want? What I need? What am I supposed to do” because he genuinely believed not being Spider-Man would make things better for him and that wasn’t the case, in the end he realizes the key to his atonement is balance. 5. And lastly, no raimi did not drastically change Peter’s origin, while I can agree Peter’s resentment towards the world isn’t strongly conveyed in well…almost any adaptation at all besides maybe TAS (I’m surprised you use this criticism for raimi but then bring up mcu Spider-Man as an example of a good adaptation) but Peter Parker has been shown in these movies to be a jerk when he’s met with fame and recognition that fuels his ego, I think the best example of this are the scenes in Spider-Man 3 prior to even getting the symbiote so I don’t think it’s far fetched to say peter wasn’t particularly a perfect kid before the spider bite, these are innate character flaws within him. I also think your point about the origin can be used against the spectacular Spider-Man as well since they pretty much do the raimi origin almost beat for beat there and peter isn’t necessarily a huge jerk there. Raimi Peter’s growth in Spider-Man 2 consisted of him believing at first he had to abandon Spider-Man to pursue his dreams, to believing he had to abandon his dream to pursue being Spider-Man only to realize neither were the case, this isn’t a “loop” it’s very clear character progression. And no, MCU Spider-Man did not adapt ASM 50 more accurately. If anything his motives for not wanting to be Spider-Man there are very similar to Spider-Man 2 (pursuing mj and his own selfish desires as a means to escape emotional turmoil) in that movie, he wasn’t quitting because he believed it was the right thing to do, I think you’re confusing Peter’s established motives with his reasons for giving away Edith later in the film. This video comes off as someone doing everything they can to twist information in the comics, raimi films and other Spider-Man media as a whole as a means to get back at criticisms made towards MCU Spider-Man. That’s all I have to say really
@Erik Kemeey 1. I literally bring up how he twists the original run and excludes ASM 33 (part of the lee/ditko run btw) which further emphasizes ben’s importance. Ben was very much a moral anchor in that chapter and the Spider-Man mythos as a whole from the beginning. The annuals even go in depth on this too. Not only does he lie about Ditko/Lee’s run but he makes broad statements about the Spider-Man mythos as a whole that aren’t true which is why it’s important to bring up these later issues and he believes he can easily get away with it by saying “I’m only talking about the Stan lee comics” regardless, he is wrong. 2. He uses FFH as an example of ASM #50 done right even though his motives (especially involving MJ) are very similar to Spider-Man 2, Peter even tells mysterio he didn’t want to help because he wanted a perfect plan to get with MJ on his vacation and it’s all ruined. So yeah, I think he’s being hypocritical here. Both FFH and SM 2 have peter either want to quit or in FFH’s case, settle down a little, because of his own selfish desires, wanting to escape responsibility and wanting to get with mj. 3. I know he doesn’t hate raimi, but his points are still misleading and disingenuous thus why I’m combatting those points. Also, quickly adding, I think using the “he’s comparing it to Lee’s run specifically” isn’t a strong argument because it advocates that those comics the raimi films take from also aren’t true to the character which isn’t the case at all
@Erik Kemeey by saying Ben was only mentioned 3 times (which is wrong) and intentionally excluding Issue 33 and the annuals when discussing ben’s importance in the lee run and making broad statements about his role in the mythos that are entirely wrong (like the raimi films inflating ben’s importance, or that MJ getting back with Peter aren’t true to the character) it gives his audience a false impression that the raimi films over exaggerated or flipped these elements despite these things being present in the comics which isn’t good (especially considering most of his audience likely doesn’t read the comics) I’d respect this video more if he did make a small effort to highlight that the raimi films took from other writers as well as lee so people don’t get the wrong idea but he continued to make these broad statements multiple times in the video. Even if the video did this, I’d still disagree with the sentiment that the raimi films got Lee’s Spider-Man wrong but I could at least appreciate it for being a little more honest. And I know why Peter gave the glasses to mysterio, my point is that his reasons for wanting to settle down are almost the same as Spider-Man 2 and are both linked to a romance plot with MJ but he claims in the video that SM2 does this while FFH doesn’t. I’d say that’s a double standard Also if this video is meant to highlight that every live action Spider-Man has its deviations then I’d agree but his criticisms as to why are what I disagree with. There’s valid criticism to be made towards the raimi films as adaptations but these aren’t it. I also doubt that’s the videos intent considering in this and his mcu videos, he believes it’s a faithful adaptation of lee and constantly sprinkles jabs at raimi Spider-Man in there (like his nwh trailer video)
I have nothing wrong with MCU Spidey fans... I'm not gonna gatekeep my favorite character of all time. But Jesus those critisms of the Raimi movies are so desperate and disingenuous. To say the MCU Spider-Man is more accurate is fucking hilarious.
@Erik Kemeey 1) The Ben thing is semantics and you know it 2) But Mary Jane IS his one true love. A true for the comics (both the 616 continuity and the Ultimate timeline, which the Raimi universe also takes inspiration from). At the end of the day, there are plenty of girls that came in, but only a handful that actually mattered (Gwen, MJ, Betty...unfortunately, Felicia, and Jean Dewolffe), so they're not considered. It'd be like complaining that TAS Spider-Man is unfaithful because he doesn't have the SPIDER BUGGY. 3) Regardless of his feelings, he had let Mary Jane go. Her decision to say, "hey, don't I get a say in this?" is... well, *her* decision.
Personally, I think the tapestry of the character's history from the original comics is best viewed as a whole rather than trying to isolate just one section of the mythos because that's doomed to fail. Across the decades, what's the most enduring elements of the character, not nitpicking a single scene on screen for not matching up with whatever comic you select at the time. Contradictions happen but the character remains fairly consistent, for better or worse, in terms of actual characterisation. That's not to dismiss Stan Lee, because lord knows I adore the man, but after he left the flagship title, he stopped being the one steering Peter on his path. Comics are a collaborative medium after all. Arguably the influences of Ditko shaped Peter during his era, just as Romita changed Peter during his time as artist, and so on until the present.
Yeah, plus with spider verse and the backstory scenes, I think webb's films especially Tony (in a more forced way) reference alot of spider man's abilities over all these years from the comics (it's just that spider verse felt surpringly alot more natural for a multi-versal threat 😂)
I mean he's literally talking about the storyline the movie adapted. Plus Peter never gets reset like dc. He doesn't have another origin and these comics still are the canon of his time in high school ect.
You nitpick and misinterpret the movie so hilariously... I even have come to like the MCU Spider-Man, accepting it as a different interpretation of the original comics but lmao that has SO MANY more differences to what anyone would associate as Spiderman, especially in his iconic solo comics. Fat best friend knowing his identity, basically 2 scenes where his secret identity is a problem in the whole 2 movies, never truly alone, never angry or sad for anything more than one scene at a time... And yeah whether you like it or not, uncle Ben is an integral character in peters life, also literally NO money problems, is accepted by the avengers and given billionaire help immediately, Idk it's that easy to nitpick. And none of those were misinterpreting the work lmao
He never said Ben wasn't an integral point of his life, he says that because Ben didn't start out as this holy symbol for Peter, him remembering Ben's importance later in his life after he quits hits him double the amount becuase of it. It wasn't so much saying he didn't matter, it's quite the opposite.
@@robertrivera5569 he was basically saying uncle Ben isn't an important spiderman character, Then scrubs any mention of uncle Ben from Steve Ditkos run... As if it never happened, then ignored every other writers who mentioned it
Very interesting critique. Personally when I look at all three iterations I'd say how I view it is: *The Raimi movies* are Raimi Spider-Man movies. Spider-Man through the lense of Raimi: more of a reimagining than an adaptation. It's every thing that makes Spider-Man, Spider-Man for him. Guilt, growth, opening up. *The Webb movies* are modern adaptations, and personally, more accurate. A Spider-Man adaptation from Marc Webb's perspective. From Peter's attitude to the creepier aesthetic of the first film and how it emulates Ditko's style to the more bombastic, heroic, and colourful aesthetic of the second movie and how it emulates Romita's style(also, on a sidenote, there's a really good re-cut from 604spidey on RUclips, and should definitely be checked out). *The Watts/MCU movies* still doesn't feel completely Spider-Man to me. I like the ideas. I like the more team up-ey nature of it, I like that it tries to give him a highschool supporting cast, I like Tom Holland as an actor. I just don't like the execution of it all. You bring up the Johnny Storm bit, but I'd disagree a bit on your reading. Peter doesn't really look up to the FF as role models, he looks up to them as friends and as he gets older he grows closer to them from just wanting to join them for money to joining them because they're his friends. That Johnny storm bit(in my eyes) wasn't Peter learning and trying to thank him as a role model, it was him learning and trying to thank him as a friend. And that's why this adaptation irks me the wrong way. In the movies Peter looks up to these heroes, in the comics he looks toward them. Maybe it's different in the ultimate comics(and I hear it's more accurate to those), but for me, that difference throws the whole character off for me. Peter(whether or not you want to agree with me) looks up to people: his wife, his aunt, and yes, his uncle. And in some ways how he views Ben(even if it isn't super literal like in the Raimi movies) is a flaw. Why I like the character so much is because he was one of the first teenage superheroes where his mentor wasn't a superhero, it was his family. It was some blue collar worker and incredibly kind housewife. Anyways, I like the look of Homecoming. The colours pop very well. it subtly feels like a comic imo without going over board.
You echo my thoughts exactly. Especially the Johnny Storm bit. I think he might be overlooking that Peter and Johnny kinda had rivalry at first. But they became great friends afterwards.
Not every Spider-Man is completely comic book accurate, otherwise what’s the point in making different adaptations. I wish more people would be more open to new ideas. It’s like people see something different, and they immediately think it’s bad. MCU Spider-Man and his movies are more family friendly, but it’s not exclusively made for kids like the Ultimate Spider-Man or Marvel’s Spider-Man cartoon shows. This version of Spider-Man is about a teenage boy becoming a man, and if you want to take the name “Spider-Man” literally, it’s an origin story for Peter going from being a Spider-Boy to a Spider-Man. Jon Watts said in an interview for Homecoming that the Home trilogy was meant to be like an origin story. MCU Spider-Man doesn’t just look up to Iron Man; he looks up to the other superheroes in the MCU. He’s not an Iron Man fanboy like how someone like Buddy was a Mr. Incredible fanboy. He just wanted to be as amazing as the other superheroes in the MCU. In Homecoming, Peter wanted to be more than just a Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, and in Far From Home, Peter learned that other superheroes like Iron Man were not perfect.
@@supersaiyanfox9190 yeah, and I'm fine with that. By the end of NWH, I can say that, it did its own thing, and even if I wasn't a fan of all of it, and that's okay. Because by the end of it, you could really say it was telling a Peter Parker story.
I really appreciate this video. I think your final conclusion is correct in that many (including myself) write off the other iterations of Spider-Man too quickly because they don’t fit within what we assume is a more comically-accurate Spidey in the Raimi films. However, I don’t think Raimi’s films fundamentally change Stan Lee’s run of the character. I just think many of the changes that were made had more to do with the confines of the medium. For example: 1. I don’t think we can say that Peter is *not* kind of a jerk before he gets his powers, because he still immediately uses his powers for self gain when he gets them. Would a completely nice guy do that? Also, in a comic book, you have more time to flesh out a character. There’s only so much time in the first film to show who Peter is, set up the story, and make us emphasize with him, as we should. 2. The uncle Ben critique doesn’t make much sense to me. I think it’s pretty simple: making the famous quote come from an actual character in the movie that is important to Peter is more powerful than if it was said non-diegetically in some narration like in the comics. That doesn’t change anything fundamental about him or his motivations. Also, Peter’s origin is *still* wrapped up in Uncle Ben’s death in the comics. I’m not sure how that’s entirely different from what we see in the Raimi films. It just made us care about Uncle Ben more and gave him more of a moral thrust on Peter. I need to rewatch this and finish my thoughts…but would love to hear what you think. I just think it’s harsh to say the Raimi films are not really Spider-man-like when they still contained the basic message, IMO. They just had to package it differently.
You explained your points really well and I can see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. Firstly I agree when you say comic book Peter is all about moving on and change, but I completely disagree when you say that Spider-Man 2 is all about holding onto your beliefs and that Peter doesn't change in that movie. Peters arc in that film is learning to be Spider-Man because he wants to not because of uncle Ben, that was his mindset at the beginning but when he gave up his responsibilities he was free. However when he saved the kid from the burning building he realised that he can't turn his back away. He feels compelled to save people and do the right thing, not for uncle Ben but for himself, when he gives up Mary Jane again it is because he know's he has to for himself, not for uncle Ben. The whole theme of the film is about giving up the things you want the most even your dreams to do the right thing. Peter was able to MOVE ON from Mary Jane but it was Mary Jane who made her own choice to be with Peter because she has her established reasons for loving him. This is reinforced by the fact that Peter didn't even show up at her wedding day, Peter in the first half of the film was chasing her and constantly trying to get his way but by the end he learned to stay away from her and let her get married in his absence. I can understand your take but personally I still believe that Raimi's interpretation is the most accurate Spider-Man out of the three and clearly gets the heart and soul of the character. Side note, I see what you mean about the villains not growing when Peter gives up Spider-Man but what makes this movie great to me is that it chooses to focus more on Peter Parker than Spider-Man, many people have said that Spider-Man 2 is a Peter Parker film and I agree with that, Spider-Man is not the main focus of this film. Still enjoyed your video tho.
Man this guy is complaining that there's no crime storyline in the movie.. as if that's an actual valid complaint. And yeah thank you for admitting peter changes in the movie. It's a giant Strawman
@@Courier_333 His complaint is that the Spider-Man side of the story feels less important than Peter's when they should both be equally important Which is a valid critique
@@Courier_333 fr tho Yes they're the same person LITERALLY but the whole idea is Peter lives his life as two people. In the comics (and some of live action films) they show this by having Peter and Spider-Man both feel like different people with their own separate problems that bleed into each other. Like in Spider-Man No More, Peter's side of the story is his interpersonal relationships but Spider-Man's plotline has him deal with the growing crime rate. Where as in this movie adaptation, Spider-Man is just the mask Peter puts on and source of conflict for him. As a result, the Spider-Man side of the story feels underdeveloped.
What do you think of spectacular spiderman in relation to this comic? I know that it gets a lot of Peter's origin from the movie, but I think it works a lot better because it was in the symbiote storyline and not Peter quiting. Edit: Nevermind I didn't know that you sort of talked about this in spectacular spiderman video.
"one guy being beaten up, a vague graph, an offscreen rando dies in a fire, and no police are investigating dock ock." Okay firstly, how would Peter see anymore crime if he's avoiding being Spiderman? That's the point of the story. Maybe you have a problem with the perspectives of the scenes being mainly the main characters and not... Side police officers but whatever.. Or you're mad that the kingpin wasn't in the movie or some crime subplot? BUt you really mean to tell me you watched the scene of him running into a burning building, almost dying to save one kid... And you don't feel anything hearing that there was another person he didn't know about? Would you have rather wanted peter to witness the death himself? That scene isn't even about the consequences of there being no spiderman. It's just the whole theme of the movie which is you have to do good things no matter what even when it blows up in your face...
Also, in the comics Peter decides to stop being Spider-Man and in Raimi's SM2 he loses his powers because of his subconscious, taking away his agency and making him a passive character, which is something that has always bugged me about this film.
He loses his powers, he goes to the doctor to find out the issue in an attempt to get better. He originally thought he had no choice but to be Spider-Man because it was the responsible thing to do only to find out that he does have a choice to walk away if he chooses. He then makes the decision to quit being Spider-Man. How exactly is he a passive character in this situation?
you misunderstood, Peter in Spider-Man 2 lost his powers because he was sick of being Spider-Man but kept going because that's what uncle ben would've wanted but then when he realized that his life wasn't getting any better and after he went to the doctor, he chose to drop the suit.
A part of me wants to express that I still feel like the Raimi movies capture the underdog element of spiderman better in almost way, which is crucial to me and the reason why I can't get attached to the newer movies, that and their low-stakes comedy. But I realize that basically almost comes down to how they feel to me. Being mentored by someone with so much privilege like Tony Stark seems so anti-spiderman to me, but does that say more about Spiderman or about what kind of story I want Spiderman to be? I certainly don't want that character to represent something like that, but was that ever what he was when he started? I guess what I'm holding onto is that there is an interpretation that gets the spirit of Spiderman. I still can't get behind Watts movies with the focus on spiderman being this big-name hero answering to billionaires, the Webb movies are riddled with this idea that Spiderman is a chosen hero so I can't get behind that, and this video does make a convincing argument that the Raimi movies don't get it either. To me the Raimi films always felt like the only movies made with legit intention. I guess the idea that no one gets spiderman, or that there was nothing to get about spiderman to begin with, and he has no central moral theme that every adaptation should get right just kinda bums me out I guess.
i agree that nwh is a better interpretation of spider-man no more, but i also think that sm2 was trying to be its own interepretation of the story instead of doing the same thing
also i think changing characterization is not a big deal as long as the characters hold the same moral values, and once they become spider-man i think all interpretations do hold those same moral values
Brilliant analysis! This is a distinction that needs to be made (or at least more widely appreciated). Spider-Man’s origin story has become a meme at this point, but it’s interesting just how much that’s tied to the film adaptation and not the source material. But I guess that speaks more to the popularity and efficacy of Raimi’s film than anything to do with Lee’s work
I really enjoy these videos of comparing the comics with the movie adaptations. I’d love to see you to do this with other characters at some point. For example I’d love a video comparing iron man extremis and iron man 3, or iron man 2 and demon in a bottle.
Well, Aldrich Killian dies at the beginning of Extremis and Tony doesn't use Extremis himself, so wildly different. Although I have to thank your you for at least knowing Iron Man 3 is an Extremis adaptation. Most people still think it is supposed to be a Mandarin story.
you’re ignoring the very obvious distinct difference between the movies and comics. tobey actually lost his powers due to being mentally overwhelmed 3:53… you don’t truly believe that being spider-man doesn’t make a lot of difference in his life lol. the reason he missed them in the first place was bc he felt like he had to be spider-man instead. just because the timing of when he quit was bad, doesn’t mean being spider-man doesn’t really change much with his life. 4:59 i find it hilarious that you try to underplay the crime rate rising 75% and that someone died in a fire he could have stopped had he had his powers. 7:26 again completely wrong, Uncle Ben is confirmed to say those exact words in Spider-Man vs Wolverine Issue #1 1987. the fact you’re trying to paint Ben as almost irrelevant is crazy to me, as a lot of his characterization came after his death. so it really doesn’t matter if he was barely shown before he died in 616 7:53 “not particularly smart” ??? yes 616 was *smarter* but they make it so apparent that tobey was also pretty smart compared to the rest in the first movie. there’s so many clips i can chose from that i’m tempted to tell you to rewatch the first half of Spider-Man 1. also, regardless if nobody else wanted to go, the fact that he got bit by the spider was by chance. it’s not like it was fate. but yes ditko’s spider-man was a “jerk” before the powers, got one thing right 👏🏾 9:48 this is so bad faith it’s crazy lol, when does raimi TRILOGY try to convey to the audience “the nobility of staying the same” refer to uncle ben’s scene in Spider-Man 1 and aunt may’s scene in Spider-Man 2 ngl i’m not gonna finish this video lmaooo
I think you argued over something that no one ever really claimed in the first place. And nitpicked like crazy lol. When people say that the Raimi films are the most accurate to the comics, they're comparing them to the other 2 Spider-Men. They're not saying they're the exact copy of the comics to the big screen. I think you completely missed the point of the rain drops sequence. There's a reason why it's so silly. Because it's not real. Peter THINKS that once he drops Spider-Man, his life will instantly get better. He thinks he'll get to stroll to class, eating a hotdog. Do his homework and get back the girl with no worries. We then quickly see this is not the case. That his decision to drop Spider-Man does have consequences. Crime has gone way up. He can't save people the way Spider-Man could. The rain drops scene is an illusion. He tried to fake himself out, thinking his life was instantly better. But it wasn't. And the guy being mugged, crime gone up 75%, the person dying in the fire, is PLENTY for us to see how dropping Spider-Man has affected the city. It's a movie, lol. We dont have the luxury of dragging out that story for 50 comic issues. We only got 2 hours. More unnecessary nitpicking. Peter not being enough of a jerk. Again, this movie never claimed to be the comics themselves. It's just a version. Peter still is kind of a jerk. He basically tells Ben to F off, and let's a guy steal a load of cash cause screw the promoter. This is enough for the film to show us how Peter realizes he needs to use his gifts responsibly. Very weird that you think Raimis Peter didn't grow or change at all. I mean. I shouldn't even have to explain that. Just rewatch the films again, I guess. I love Spider-Man, and he's my favorite hero. But like I said before. I feel like you argued something that no one's ever really brought up in the first place. I've never heard anyone say that the Raimi films are exactly like the comics. Just that they're the most accurate when comparing all 3 Spider-Men. I think Raimis Spider-Man is the most accurate because in his films, he just completely understands the core of the Spider-Man character better than anyone else. The ENTIRE reason why Spider-Man became the most popular superhero ever, is because of his relatability and his struggles. No one expressed that better than Raimi. Spider-Man 2 isn't an exact copy of Spider-Man no more, or the other original comics. But it's themes and beliefs. It's meaning behind the Spider-Man character, hasn't been done better since. That's why Spider-Man 2 imo, and lots of others, is their favorite film.
@@mero7731Did you even read what OP said? Your comment seems really tone deaf. It’s not anymore accurate than Tom Holland nor Andrew Garfield’s takes. But Raimi still got his essence better than the other two portrayed and had better written plots than the other two iterations which felt more like business to sell toys to blind fanboys and children.
I'd argue that Tobey's spider-man is the LEAST comic accurate, Andrew Garfeild would be the most accurate, Andrew captured more of the original Spider-man more than any other actor, and Tom had the sitcom type of feeling from the first 30 issues. I agree about the raindrops sequence sorta but I'm not gonna get into that. And lets be honest here peter absolutely is not enough of a jerk. From reading both the 616 comics and the Ultimate comics (which those movies are based off of) Peter is a huge jerk, in the movie Peter is just a jerk when he gets powers, in the comics Peter had always been a jerk and his powers were a way to push the world down under his feet. In the movie he is a nice little guy that gets a little too mean when he gets his powers. In the book peter doesn't stop the criminal because he didn't get his money and is acting against one guy, he was tired of being a wallflower and only wanted gain for himself and his entirely selfish actions are the cause of Uncle ben. For the final point, there are definitely people out there that believe the raimi movies are accurate. There are countless amounts of people that argue online about how Andrew garfeild's Spider-Man was too different from Tobey Maguire's Spider-man and so it wasn't an accurate Spider-Man and the same for Tom. Tobey is the absolute LEAST accurate Spider-Man his story is different, his character arch is different, his characterization is different and his actions are different. that little comment about Spider-Man not being done as good since is your personal opinion, in fact Spider-Man Far From Home did a more accurate job at telling the IDEAS behind Spider-Man No More.
@mukilandhinesh3931 I don't think Tobey is accurate cause he's different from Tom or Andrew. I think he's accurate cause he's the closest to what I read in the old comics. None of the 3 are perfectly accurate. Im not saying Tobeys movies are ripped right out of the comics word for word. Like I already previously said in my original response ... But imo I think Raimi did the best at capturing the epitome of the Spider-Man character the best. Especially SM2. All the main qualities of why the entire world fell in love with the character in the first place aren't shown any better than it was in SM2. Andrews was a close second. I liked his portrayal a lot. And even tho the movies, especially the second, didn't do so well, I enjoyed his Spider-Man. Toms I'm still waiting to see because so far, he's just been some "Disnified" version of the character. He's just been the Iron Spider. He didn't become Spider-Man until the last 3 minutes of NWH.
You might as well be complaining how different OG Iron Man is to his movie counterpart. things change over time an adaptation is just that and adaptation.
This video is just terrible in so many ways, It's funny that the title is "Spider-Man 2 doesn't get Spider-Man" When you yourself doesn't even get how comic book characters work There is no such thing as an original version of a character or a definitive interpretation of a character in comics The whole point of these characters is that they're in constant change You're literally using a 30 issue long run to reduce a character that has existed for literally 60 years Also, In many moments of the video you just purposefully misinterpret the Raimi movies, Which is incredibly frustrating when you're trying to make an argument
@@Mrcinemazo9nn I'm not upset over the movie I'm getting upset over this dude's weak ass essay, When you make a video with such a lousy title like that you better have an amazing argument to back it up
You misunderstand, He isn't saying that the Raimi movies are bad he is saying that people shouldn't compare other Spider-Men to Raimi's as if it was the most accurate or best by pointing out how many fundamental changes Sam Raimi made to Spider-man's character
Good video. As other comments have mentioned, it's not that the Raimi films are a different interpretation of the character, it's that the fans codify it and canonize it as THE interpretation. Virtually every single superhero film is a departure from the source material. From the OG Superman to Batman 89 to X-Men to the Avengers. That's how adaption and interpretation works. And that's what makes it beautiful. I don't love the Raimi films because I think they are the "one true way to portray Spider-Man." I love them because they are a masterful INTERPRETATION of the character. That's why I'll always defend Garfield above all. People love shitting on his Peter for being "too cool" and "too much of a jerk." And I'm like, have you READ early Spider-Man? Peter was a jerk from the very beginning! I love all three big screen versions for how they adapt the material. They're all Spider-Man. It's not about what a film can do to make it as "accurate" to the comic as possible...because comics are ALWAYS shifting in direction, tone, style, and meaning. Adapting a comic book to film is about filtering the various themes and ideas and messages from that comic through the lens of a film and the filmmakers own interpretation. And on that front ALL THREE versions fascinating takes.
So I always felt a disconnect with the rami trilogy, but couldn't ever put my finger on what turned me off until you spent it out for me here. I personally have a lot of anxieties about becoming stagnant in my life and just running in circles, getting so attached to the ways things are I'll fight to avoid change. I think that internal struggle is why I always super related to spiderman, but feel put off by the rami trilogy. Both have that same message underline core of change, but rami's trilogy answered with stay the same as the world changes while comic spidy is more about changing with the world and taking the opportunity that arise.
@@laststrike4411 if you're question is how does comic spidy change while rami spidy doesn't some easy answers would be how Peter started out as a spiteful child blaming his problems on others. He then got the powers and decided to take what he though he deserved and paid a price for it. He became a good person afterwards. Rami spidy starts as a good kid who starts to use his powers for personal gain before paying a price and having to return to being a good kid after. Besides that peter barely changes in the whole trilogy. He's always a good hearted kid who tries his best to help others and is often oblivious to how others are feeling around him. Compare that to the comics where spidy has to constantly grow and evolve. He began as a nerd with no confidence and the first thing he tries to do as a hero is join other hero teams for validation. He then gives up being spiderman because he's not confident enough to ignore Jameson. He final gains that import self confidence after learning how capable he really is and begins to grow both as a hero and a man. He moves on from high-school flings and finds a girl with similar intrest as him. And after loosing her he reconnects with MJ as they have both finally grown enough to be a healthy relationship
As some have pointed out, Uncle Ben's importance in the Sam Raimi films are sure inspired by Stan Lee, but also by other Spider-Man writers. It's hard to say what's what and what is when Spider-Man is a combination of so many different writers throughout the years. From how I see it, the Spider-Man in the Raimi films is an older Spider-Man set in the events of the Stan Lee run. He's a little bit more figured out, I understand why it was done like that. They wanted to skip the timeline since Superhero movies weren't like they are now where there's so much opportunity to flesh them out and "grow up" with them through multiple movies. This is the one benefit of the MCU Spidey since audiences are growing up with him. Right now he's a Spider Boy and that's okay. I can't wait for the day he grows up to be like the latter issues. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man may not be as accurate, honestly to me none of them are. They get some right and some wrong. Some may do things better than the other, but at the end of the day it's not about 1:1, it's about the spirit and heart of Spider-Man, which I believe is what Raimi got. Take webshooters, Gwen and this and that away, and make a Spider-Man movie from its stripped down core. That's what the original trilogy did for me.
The prominence of Uncle Ben in the Raimi films is inspired by Ultimate Spider-Man, a hugely important and popular other universe reboot of the character just two years before the release of Raimi's Spider-Man. Seven full issues are devoted to Peter's origin, and Uncle Ben plays a huge part. This version of Peter is a whole lot closer to Andrew Garfield's portrayal, however, which also has Uncle Ben play a prominent role. Spider-man was in no way as heavily and loyally associated to Johnny Storm as he is with Iron Man in the MCU. Johnny Storm was the other teenage superhero, so Peter paid attention to him and had his fair share of one-upmanship scenarios with him. But he was very much an individualist, and didn't ever feel he needed a role model
The prominence of uncle Ben is inspired by amazing Spider-Man, 616 continuity, mainly. Anyone who tries to say uncle Ben isn’t that important in main Spider-Man canon is out of their fucking minds lol
@@Awesomemusic19 But isn't it from later on in the original run with some of the 90s series too? Maybe it's because the story fast tracks him into college, so Uncle Ben's prominence is lined up to the point in Peter's life when his impact was felt the most.
@@Awesomemusic19 I'm not arguing that Uncle Ben didn't play a significant role to Peter Parker OVERALL. But the degree in which his impact is felt wanes depending on the interpretation and the point in Peter's life that interpretation takes place in. And it's not wrong for a different interpretation to do this. Period.
Yeah I'll always sympathize WAY more with the "always good-hearted" kid who conscientiously chose to have a shitty life, knowin full well he'd get fucked cuz of dat. When push comes to shove, ion give a single fuck abt an angry nerd. The majority of my admiration for spider-man comes from the fact that, even tho he's human n sometimes reluctant, ultimately he'll always choose the Herculean task, the monumental struggle, the unwinnable battle, the selfless sacrifice. Is he gon be broke forever, always strugglin, tired n beat up? Maybe. But you know damn well he won't leave New York hangin.
I think people defend Spider-Man 2 more often because its simply a better made film. The story was simple and character driven. Everyone was well cast. The score was phenomenal. A lot of the action still holds up today, even though tons of other superhero movies have come out since 2004. My love of that movie doesn't stem from how much it took from the Stan Lee run, I just think its a better overall movie than any other Spider-Man movie that's followed it (other than Spider-Verse)
This video is a bad analysis of Spider-Man 2,but what I really noticed but how bad it was is the attempt to compare the film and the comic,”saying that it’s bad because it’s inaccurate”but he did studied well on Stan Lee’s version of Spider-Man,but he did studied badly on the rami trilogy,I know you you’re not trying to crap on the rami films but you did make everyone else misunderstood and crap on the trilogy.
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
This video is both a follow up to Part 1 of my Stan Lee retrospective and stands on its own: ruclips.net/video/9cY2_IxRlgs/видео.html
I stumbled upon your channel and watched your Invincible breakdown. Just to be in time for this video. Keep up the great content homie I'm gonna binge watch your content.
@@dantegill9380 Aww thank you so much! I plan to do loads more season sized essays like the Invincible video in the coming weeks! 😁
You're right that people have misconceptions about Stan Lee's run, but it's incorrect to point the finger at the Raimi films for all changes. It's not as though Spider-Man stopped being published after Stan Lee left, nearly 400 more issues of Amazing Spider-Man were released before the first film, plus hundreds of spinoff and guest appearences, and these issues contained many retcons, reframings, and personality changes. Sam Raimi and David Koepp did not invent Uncle Ben telling Peter about responsibility, and it's not "wrong" to not stricly adhere to a small slice of a character's publishing history written nearly 4 decades prior.
@@I_Am_Gassy You're totally right, but for the purpose of this video it was crucial to use Spider-Man 2 as a case study for highlighting all of these misconceptions in a digestable way. As I mentioned at the end, the goal is not to place blame, but to shine on Stan Lee's original work and promote it as THE most reference point for understanding Spider-Man.
@@ImplicitlyPretentious I understand, hope my comment did not seem harsh, just felt like that aspect of the video might confuse people unfamiliar with the character's history.
In a way it's actually not easy to create a truly comic inaccurate Spider-Man adaptation, because unless you make him rob banks gleefully and kill Uncle Ben out of boredom, your adaptation will probably be close enough to the way a writer has portrayed him in the mainline comic universe. I hope this video succeeds in convincing people to reexamine the other adaptations, especially Andrew Garfield's.
So stan's spidey is changing and growing up. Sam's spidey is holding on to your principles.
Bro why do you call it stans spidey when Steve ditko also worked on this run
So neither version has a bad message. There’s only so much you can portray in a roughly 2 hour film. So focusing on Toby’s Peter in the way it does makes sense for Sam’s version for sure. Considering how projects get canceled and rebooted all the time not putting the serialized crime aspect there makes sense. Though it would be nice if other characters were touched on.
Speaking of that not sure having too many villains in SM3 was it’s main issue. It had more to do with Raimi not understanding Venom and the studio heads insistence to add this 1 villain muddied it up when it needed different beats for what SR was trying to get across. In some ways Venom works for the story in other way not really. My main issue is the recon of who kills Uncle Ben and what that means.
Do you think the two are mutually exclusive? The guy in the video says they are many times
@Alexp. Yeah this dude has no clue. Steve Ditko made the character, not Stan. And Raimis version is pretty faithful to Ditkos original. Maybe less ”edge” as Peter had some attitude in the original run, but otherwise it seems to understand the character quite well. Unlike the MCU and it’s travesty.
@Christian Björck that’s another thing that bothers me about this video, just completely disregards ditko despite his many contributions to the character
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS SERIES! I love the Raimi films but their effect on changing the perception of Spider-Man is undeniable. I think they get so much of the Spider-Man ethos correct in terms of that struggle between selflessness and selfishness but they forced the character into a box. All of a sudden Spider-man HAS to be miserable or he isn't accurate. He HAS to be driven solely by guilt or he isn't accurate. The Spider-Man of the comics is dynamic and relatable because he grows up and changes and learns and fucks up just like everyone else.
Exactly!! I had a working theory for so long that the Raimi films, good as they were, entirely changed what Spider Man means to a lot of people. Whereas The original Spider Man was about growth and change, everyone now seems to believe That Peter parker has to be miserable and poor and sad to be a good Spider Man,but that really isn't what it's all about.
Yes love the raimi movies. But they are an amalgamation of 616 and Ultimate. Ultimate spidey as fun as it is, isn't like 616. And every spidey fan will admit 616 is peak spidey.
@@sebastianhaney1425 kind of is though for the stan lee run. Todd McFarlane kind of changed it with peter getting married and the potential of him and MJ having kids. For 20 years the character was in limbo of late teen or early 20s.
To me, it depends. Spiderman to me, is the hero of hope. Iron man, Cap, Thor, they can get their asses kicked emotionally and physically. Spiderman is the hero who gets back up and when he gets down, it really means it, like Venom Saga and Gwen’s death.
@@dylantennant6594 I agree. He has the strongest will among all Marvel heroes. Imo.
The biggest problem with the fetishization of the Raimi movies is that it causes people too see anything Spider-Man that's done differently in any other adaptation from the Raimi movies as somehow being untrue to the character. Like the whole premise of the MCU hatred being that Uncle Ben doesn't get enough attention only exists because of those movies
But isn't that exactly what you're doing with the original comic?
@@jmorales09 It's not, I love when adaptations take their own direction with the character, even if it isn't necessarily to my preference. At the same time though, it's not really the same thing since the comic is the source material, not the raimi movies.
personally, i think you undervalue the impact of ben in the original run(not that raimi didnt overvalue him). he clearly was something core to peter as a person and his journey. i dont think the comic needs to constantly dwell on that one issue to make it important. like you gotta take it in the context of an comic series that needs to constantly be moving forward. of course more time is going to be give to human torch stuff, because that's the content that's ACTIVELY moving peter forward as a character. in his lowest moment here, its thoughts of ben and may that spur him to self realization, not Johnny storm or anyone else.
id argue that Raimi and other later works noticed this and built up uncle ben into the character he didn't have the chance to be, plus having him say the line is more powerful then some narration...unless your going to say people should ignore the "great power" line because it was only a footnote?
id say the Garfield version tackles this idea the best. even after bens death, it doesn't instantly make him into the super good guy Spiderman, if anything it only gets him to build on that vengeful side of himself, causing him to lash out with his new powers. its not until interacting with other characters, namely chief Stacy and the little boy on the bridge that he really "becomes" Spiderman. but it never stops ben from being the core his ideals are built on.
of course, none of the movies are the perfect adaptation. but its only naturally that with the size of the fandom spiderman and now the mcu have attracted that not EVERY person will have read the original comics. everyone in the modern era will have there own "true" spiderman. and just continually annoy those of us who read the these originals for all time lol
Good god someone hasn't read anything past the Ditko era, huh?
Love it! Waiting for more Spidey analysis.
PS: did you watch shang-chi? Would love to hear your thoughts on it. I loved the movie overall
I haven't seen it yet cuz I'm waiting to watch it on a friend's birthday, but from what I've heard it sounds like prime meterial for a trauma analysis 😂
@@ImplicitlyPretentious ooh yes! Lots of trauma! You'll love it 😂
Holy cow that’s an amazing insight.
5:10 uhhh, Spiderman looses his powers, and Doc Ock's plan is able to get off the ground.
Okey really interesting video but i must say that there are a lot things that i dont agree, i know you say that the message and vision the raimi movies have of spider-man is really good, but at the same time in the video you act as if the way the movie depicts spider-man is wrong, we all know that the raimi movies are not an exact copy of the comics, they are an adaptation, a new view of the character, a new story, but retaining most of the important things that make the character what it is, similar to what the ultimate spiderman comics were, a new story, sam raimi didnt make and exact copy of the story, he wanted to make a new version of the story butstill with a good message that fits the character, you talk about a lot of things the comic does rigth and in one way or another, and how the tone changes a lot, from being a comedy to a crime story etc etc, but all does thing wouldnt have fit in a single movie, maybe in a tv show since its longer but not in a single movie, so what sam raimi decided to do with the story was a good thing, it was different, but that isnt bad in anyway, it have to be done to fit this new story and in the movie, it isnt bad at all, its a good change and still have a lot of core elements about spiderman, like the struggles with peter's life, and a lot of other things, something a feel the other movies dont do as good, also the way uncle ben character has been shown to us in the comics have changed a lot through the years, yeah in the first comics he wasnt that important, but in later comics he became more and more important, raimi changed the way dock ock is a lot, but for the better, his version of dock ock is now so iconic and good that even the ps4 version of dock ock is clearly inspired by that version, all of this reminds of me of that line of stan lee in spiderman tas when he meet spider-man "wow you sure arent the same character i have been writting all this years" it just shows that spider-man have change a lot through the years and most of those changes were not really bad, so in some ways this video it looks like you are trying to say that what sam raimi did was wrong "and it wasnt" but then in other parts you say that its just to show the difference with what stan lee and apreciate what he did but saying it like if thats the way it should have been in the movie and the only way that story should have been told, but it wasnt a bad thing that it was different, and even though the andrew and tom storys got some of this things you say rigth, those verisons failed to get a lot more things rigth than wrong when it comes to what the character is, they did more changes for the worst when i feel raimi did more changes for the better when it comes to putting the character in the movie and still having the core elements of the character and still giving a good story that fits spider-man, i think we should admire sam raimi for still being able to translate the character to the movies and this story too
I agree that changes have to be made so the story is optimised for the medium, but I believe those decisions should come from a desire to re-apply the original source material's message and idea. I still love Spider-man 2, but the arrangement of its choices and deviations accumulatively pushes it so far away from Stan Lee's themes that I strongly believe its important to treat the film on its own merits, as opposed to a reference point for everything else. I'm hoping that by highlighting these disparities, people will be interested enough to go back to Stan's original work and appreciate them, then look at other adaptations like PS4 and MCU spidey with a stronger sense of fairness and understanding outside of nostalgia. I'm not saying differences are bad, I say we should look at how those changes impact and relate with the various patterns of ideas the character is built on! :)
@@ImplicitlyPretentious i totally understand what you mean and i agree, but i think that its okey they dcided to go for a new message, specially since it turn out really great and really fits the character and it became so iconic and an isnpiration for a lot of people, and as i said, im sure raimi didnt just took everything from the stan lee comics, he took a lot of things from other spider-man storys and writters and it came up great and manage to capture what spider-man is, anyways, i still get what you mean and what your point was, so yeah, really good video and i really like how you get the message of the original comics, good luck man and keep doing great videos 👍
@@hawaianmobster1579 I really think this video is important to make people still love the Raimi movies (gosh, I really love them and still think Spider-Man 2 is amazing) but come to the conclusion that they're not the main and ultimate view of the character, because a lot of people do that (wich is a little bad thing) and can criticize a lot of adaptions and views of Spider-Man, even if they are being faithful to the source material and doing good changes (what even Raimi did too). But it was really nice to see how you think :)
@@arthurandrey2431 thanks, and yeah i understand, i know the raimi movies are not the main thing to have in mind when doing a new story or adaptation of the character, but i do think the raimi movies are a good example of how to make a good spider-man story and adaptation and how keep the feel of the character and what it represents, spectacular spiderman, and ps4 spiderman are as good examples, on how to do this in the rigth way
@@hawaianmobster1579 Really good examples! I also would say that the MCU Spidey is doing a great job of showing off what Spider-Man represents, but in a more slow way (like Marvel always does) and in the other hand, the Marc Webb movies almost did it but the movies were a little of a mess when working in some important aspects, losing their way.
Bruh, you have been changing my perspective on Peter Parker’s relationship to Spider-Man for months now. I almost feel bad but everything you said makes sense. 😅
I guess the comics I’ve read have had Peter or Spider-Man’s two lives clashing in such a way that everything is going wrong and it just made it seem like Spider-Man is a curse or burden. But that’s clearly not (always) the case and I’m so happy to realize that. Makes the PS4 Spider-Man look even better in retrospect. Even though he had his struggles with the dual lives as well.
Not to mention, I didn’t realize how much me and Pete had in common till this video so that’s cool as well.
Very succinct. I think the biggest difference is that Spider-Man 2 tells that Spider-Man No More story at a time where Peter is more immature. I wouldn't call it un-Spidey but just a take where they made him less mature and more introspective and self-sympathizing because of it. The original No More story was very much a product of the Romita run at a time where Peter underwent a huge deal of growth in self-esteem and social status, where the Raimi films held much more onto Ditko's characterisation for Peter, obviously aside from the greater inclusion of characters like Uncle Ben and the inclusion of MJ and Harry which are very Romita.
I think as far as this adaptation goes, it works on its own two feet and is in no way a betrayal of the original source material, however, I really appreciate that you bring Raimi fans such as myself back down to Earth in that each film version of Spidey has its accuracies and deviations from the source material, each of which have their own stories to tell.
(Which is also really helpful as I'm as fan of both Raimi and MCU Spidey and some folks just can't fathom that).
Very well said Pup. Im with you on enjoying multiple iterations. i love both Raimi and Webb films but my personal favorite is Tom Holland but i grew up on them all technically.
Great comment pup. I'm a huge fan of all three live action interpretations of the character, so I'm definitely in the minority lol. I love how distinct they all are with the stories they tell and where their focus lies and I don't think any of them are definitive. However, with Far From Home being my favorite iteration of the character from the films and having what I want to see most from Peter Parker, it's proof that the MCU Spider-Man can be awesome when he's written properly. Still, I love all the things Raimi, Webb, and Watts get right about the character, and honestly, they all do a great job.
Okay?
I didn't mind Civil War MCU Spidey. I really didn't like Homecoming as a movie though. It felt like it was taking a crap on Peter, just because it could. It created huge inconsistencies. He's competent in Germany, but somehow not in his native New York. The suit redesign especially bothered me. Return of the back tick. Dull webbing. Teensy-Weensy chest spider. Baby eyes. Can't do anything right without Iron Man's help. Those for me were all a hard no. I could tolerate what they did with Ned and MJ; but then ramming Iron Man down our throats like that, and never even mentioning Ben, felt like betrayals.
Awkward as the Garfield movies were, I wanted them to recover and do better. The second one's rushed ending was a disgrace; but a third film could've redeemed the series. I liked the idea of a kale-munching hipster Spidey, even if his first movie costume having yellow eyes was a big turn-off.
Agreed. I actually was a Raimi stan for a long time. I thought Tobey's Spider-Man was THE Spider-Man and anything else was trash. Last summer I watched every Spider-Man movie because I wanted to not be a bias fan boy. While I still enjoy Raimi's the best, I will say that I was wrong about MCU Spider-Man (Far From Home was spectacular) and I can enjoy certain elements from Amazing Spider-Man 2 as well. Each have their own style and take inspiration from different parts of the comics. All this to say, let Spider-Man be Spider-Man and enjoy whatever version you enjoy.
I'm glad someone is pointing out this differences between Raimi movies and Stan Lee's run.
Be prepare for more videos like this, I've filled an entire notebook with issue to issue notes, formulas and diagrams from how much they differ
I really like Lee's run. I wish the concept of spiderman wasn't blurred thru the dozens and dozens of reinterpretations and retellings
I just had a talk with a coworker yesterday about this. Saying how Garfield and Holland’s Spider-men are closer. The Raimi Spider-man is closer to the 90s cartoon. Probably every episode he talked about Ben and that line. I think that’s were they got it from for the Raimi movies.
@@ImplicitlyPretentious questionable.
Bro it’s not just stans run Steve ditko also worked on this run
I don’t think Sam’s interpretation of Spider-Man is lesser due to the inaccuracy, so much as it is it’s own take on the character. Though I find it annoying that people judge all versions of Spidey by Raimi’s like it’s a fundamental part of the character
Kinda weird then how the biggest complaint about MCU Spider-Man are the inaccuracies.
I would say raimi's version is actually pretty accurate, just not to Stan lee's run, its honestly a lot like Gerry Conway's run with the overbearing guilt, and soap opera tone,
@@chance4827 tbh I never cared about comic accurate movies. It's only a problem when it's a subjectively bad idea. (I.e Adam Warlock never fighting Thanos basically making him useless to the plot )
No.
@Change, it’s not so much that the inaccuracy bugs us, but the fact that they missed the point of the character in the MCU, Spider-Man never wanted to be spider-man, but he is responsible, he has to be Spider-Man, in these movies, his motivations are completely different to The Spider-Man I know and love, (Also, I’m not a Raimi fan boy, those movies are goofy as fuck)
I think one thing people need to understand when talking about the cinematic Spider-man movies is that none of them are completely accurate to the Comic Book version and each make substantial changes to the character and his arc. Heck even Miles Morales from into the Spider-verse had some major changes from the version in the comics. One big thing I none of the films did and i don't think ever will is showing how Peter Parker before Spider-man was a vengeful guy who was out against the world. I don't think these changes are necessarily a problem, but it does make me role my eyes when I see people try to argue what film is more comic accurate as a reason why one series is better than the other when each series strays away form the comics in a major way.
Is not about the changes is about feeling like the character
Which is why TSSM and Insomniac's Spidey are better than the movies
People stay talking about the amazing spiderman and how he shouldn't have been hunting after the criminals, but that's litterally what he does in the comics. Wack
I've said this from day one glad theres people who actually get it
@@candycorn4912 I agree also unpopular opinion the amazing spiderman first movie suit is actually my favorite suit it just looks unique but not straying away from the look of spiderman and honestly it makes me appreciate the second suit a bit more because it show a contrast to how he started out
I don’t think either way is better or worse than the other, just different ways of telling the story
Tell that to the MCU haters
I'd the original Lee story feels more realistic and more layered personally
@ I'd argue you could still do in feature length an example would be superman 2
@@babaracus9583 What are you talking about?
@@scottchaison1001 how the Rami version isn't that realistic compared to the og?
"Spider man isn't about how noble it is to hold on and stay the same. It's about the importance of changing your funsamental attitude with others when you hit a certain point in life"
Well said. Spider man stories as whole are basically a coming of age story, showing a kid not just becoming a super hero but also growing into a mature and responsible man. I think this theme was even explored in the Spectacular Spider Man through the differences between Peter and Norman Osborn. In the series, Osborn main catchphrase is "Don't apologize. I never do", which represents his arrogance and refusal to recognize his mistakes. This "never apologize" is the polar opposite of Peter journey, who learns from his mistakes and change to a better person.
Yep, if one wants a story about a noble hero stayign true to his close to flawless principles, one should turn to Captain America.
@@swanpride Yup. Captain America is the inspirational hero, the one people want to be like while Spider man is the relatable one, the one who represents the kid growing into the hero that fans want to be.
@@swanpride The thing is Cap is the one we should look up to and spiderman is the one we would turn out to be because of that
Spiderman 2 is not about staying the same. The ending of the movie is him finally getting with Maryjane. A massive change considering he's spent the whole movie convinced he has to pick spider-man or true love
The movie is about how important it is to do the right thing, even if you have to give up your dreams. Not to say dreams can't come true or you can't change or be happy- the ending of the movie makes it clear you can have your cake and eat it too....
@@Courier_333 I got this and is a important and wonderful message. However I think the movie contradicts itself by having Peter and MJ together, so basically he didn't need to give his dream to be spider man (the right thing).
Also, while I'm not against Peter and MJ being together, having her be his first and only love in the franchise really goes against Spider man theme, that life not always goes in the way the person expected. Peter plans are not always successful and things not always go the way he wants but, through his optimism, he is able to find the positives in this situation and evolve from them.
Compare Peter and MJ situation with Peter and Betty Brant, his first love in the Stan Lee and Steve Ditko run. When Betty start dating and eventually was engage to Ned Leeds, Peter became a little disapointed but eventually accepted her decision to move onm recognizing that Betty was happy with Ned and that his attraction to her was no longer the same, with Peter find new love in girls like Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane (who in the first issues was mysterious girl who Peter didn't even wanted to meet due to his aunt trying to force him to go on a date with her, making their future romance much more ironic and surprising). Just like Betty, Peter moved on with his life as well and was still to find love in someone else.
To be fair, there was an Uncle Ben's cult way before the Raimi's movies. There were writers in the comics who treated him like a saint.
All I can say is thank you for making these videos, bc if you didn't my dumb brain wouldn't understand a lot of the themes in that said movie. As well as other stuff XD
P.S. Your entire self is a mood and I love it XD
I'm really hoping we get three trilogies with Holland's Spider-Man. The 'Home' Trilogy and then two more that represent the different phases of his life. We're in the sitcom phase for now, which 'No Way Home' looks like it's gonna be transitioning from. Then we'll get the Melodrama phase in the next trilogy, and then an all-out crime saga for the final trilogy, which will likely inevitably end Ultimate Spider-Man style and give way for Miles Morales, which they're clearly aiming for.
You want 9 Spider-Man films? Jesus Christ. Ever heard of over-saturation?
@@zacrast16 I WANT SPIDER-MAAAAAAAAANN!!
@@zacrast16 people back in 2009 you want an entire series of comic book movies all connected to each other ever hear of over-saturation
Nine separate movies does seem like over kill, 5 or 6 at most would be fine. I think after NWH comes out, if Sony still let's Tom Holland's Spiderman be used in the MCU, we're gonna see more of Peter in his young adult phase, where more social aspects collide with his life as a hero, while also taking larger roles as a main hero in the universe. That's what I'm hoping for, but who knows with how the Sony contract might play out.
@@ebenade1 I think if they can make 8 Harry Potter movies, 9 Spider-Man movies isn't really a stretch.
When looking at Peter's arc within the MCU, it's becoming more apparent how those movies are heavily based on the early works of Stan Lee and the different phases Peter had as he grew up.
In _Homecoming,_ Peter was still a boy. He's going around solving low level crimes, he's immature, impatient, childish, and very new to everything. His double life isn't dramatic, it's comedic. He keeps losing his backpack, he gets caught in his Spidey suit, his shenanigans lead him to getting detention, and had his suit taken away like a parent taking away their kids phone. The world isn't beating him to the ground, and his sense of self worth as a hero is based on the Avengers (mostly Tony Stark). It isn't until he's in the rubble that he starts to look inward calling on his strength as Spider-man to save himself because he isn't defined by a fancy suit, he's defined by his actions.
In _Far From Home_ Peter is starting to fully transition out of boyhood and becomes a young man. He has let go of his first crush and has moved onto a new love he finds in MJ, not because of how she looks or vague descriptions of her just being "the best", but because he likes who she is as a person. He is now in a world where the heroes are scattered as the Avengers appear to be disbanded after the 5 year gap and the events of _Endgame._ But he's still trying to hold onto a few things by looking for some other hero to look up to so he can have guidance. He has grown out of his desire to be in the big leagues because he's seen the kind of struggle that brings, and his self doubt makes him feel like he isn't up to the challenge. He isn't quitting being Spider-man out of fear, he is just trying to remain the rookie he was when Tony first recruited him because the times were much simpler back than (we've all had moments when we wish we could go back to being kids, less responsibilities, etc). It isn't until he learns Mysterio is a fraud and is given words of affirmation from Happy regarding the pedestal the world (Peter included) put Tony on, that he rises to the challenge and proves his capabilities not only to others, but to himself. He wasn't alongside other heroes facing the drone army, he was on his own, he used his own intuition, and his own abilities to save the day.
From what we can see from _No Way Home,_ Peter's life is becoming more and more dramatic. The consequences he faces have gone from detention to being framed for murder. His double life is now becoming more conflicting as he tries to hang onto the few good things he's gotten (I have a feeling the end of the movie will have Strange complete the spell properly and the entire world forgets his identity, including his friends and Aunt May). He even starts to step away from saying "sir" because he is no longer the rookie. He has proven his worth and his place among the hero community, he is facing bigger enemies, and he is facing it alone (for the most part)
There is a clear arc for MCU Peter as we watch him grow from a boy to a (spider-)man, and it's annoying when everyone keeps calling him "iron-boy jr" because he wasn't in his prime (both physically and emotionally) immediately after becoming Spider-man. While I do disagree with some details, the tone and arc of these movies is awesome
Well I think Sam’s Spidey is like Tim’s Batman it isn’t completely comic accurate but instead it reinvents the character so much and so well people believe that the original comics were just like how the movies are
I don’t think there’s enough of a through line between movies to define his storyline as an arc. He’s mostly the product of Tony’s arc throughout the infinity saga and now that that’s over, he going to be the product of the upcoming Dr. strange movie. He has yet to have an identity outside of other heroes.
@@timy9197 Yeah I agree, sometimes people give the MCU a little bit too much Credit. Honestly we haven’t had a completely Accurate live action version
I've heard Stan Lee himself approved Tom Holland's Spiderman..
But whatever, we have Spiderverse, guys.. many story variants will be told and retold
Peter's over arching characte arc is the transition toward maturity. I think it will be PETER that finally says the iconic quote, "with great power comes great responsibility"; to himself. Peter must come to this relization himself to become an adult.
Real maturity IS about accepting our responsibilities to others. No one can impart maturity, just help guide someone to that transition.
The No Way Home trailer has Dr. Strange telling Peter that his double life is unsustainable. I think Peter will have to let go of his 'secret' identity and reconcile that he, Perter Parker, IS Spiderman.
RDJ sort of set the entire tone of the MCU ditching superhero secret identities with one improvised line and the theme of personal identity has permeated every subsequent film since.
I know it's a simple short-hand to say that Stan Lee "wrote" all of these issues, but from everything we know about the "Marvel Method," and all the controversies that surround Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko and who created/wrote WHAT at Marvel, we should at least acknowledge that "Lee & Ditko" should be credited as writing the issues, and "Lee & Romita" credited with the others.
Seriously, thank you for this. I hate it when people complain about the newer Spidey movies because they're "not Spider-Man" when they have no context for what Spider-Man really is. I mean, he's a character that's been around for 60 years, he's been a heck of a lot of things, lol. The dogmatic devotion to the Raimi films really does come off as a reaction to backlash against them. Just as you said, it's perfectly OK to like them or love them, but to claim you do because they are more "true" to Spider-Man is just misguided.
Now Luke Skywalker...thats a different story.
I have read every single issue of Amazing Spider-Man and have been a huge fan for over 30 years. So I have PLENTY of context! And anyone that argues that the MCU Spidey is more true than the Raimi films (or even close to equal) is either ignorant or in denial. And I don't hate the MCU movies, I love Tom Holland. The Raimi movies may not have been identical to the comics but by god they were more accurate than I expected and still the most accurate on screen version of Spidey we have seen outside maybe the 90's animated show. I also love the Garfield movies.
I love the Raimi movies most because 1. They are better movies. 2. Because they are the closest version of Spider-Man out of all the movies.
Raimi>Stan
There is one true Spider-Man: the original by Steve Ditko. So yeah, the new films have no idea who the character is supposed to be.
Funny how nobody seems to mention the 90s animated series considering its the first place where ben said his great power line. Having grown up watching that series before the raimi movies i can say clearly that the raimi films are far more accurate than the mcu films simply by the fact that peter idolized iron man in those movies.
This video is already a classic
☺️☺️☺️
is already a straight garbage
Also people needs to realize this not being comic accurate does not mean an end product is bad. Specially because this characters are more than just stories now. They are important icons. And writers would wanna try their vision on them you like it or not.
İn my opinion only limit to these stories should be that it needs to protect the core of their character and even that can be subjective at times.
For example I hate Zack Synder's take on Batman. I do think his take doesn't protect his core at all and ı would even argue about it. But ı see some can see it in a different way. For some his or her view on Batman is different and he enjoys it. Now what? This is the world we living in a world with different minds and different views. And in the end of the day you need to respect those views(if they don't hurt anybody... ı will write this just in case.)
For me the core of Spider-man is that he is a relatable super hero that can just be us. A fan boy, a kid who just wants adventure, An adult trying to look for his family, A young adult who tries to understand how to live all by his or herself. You know everyone can wear the mask. And not just that but his stories are about growth. And with that his stories are showing different kinds of ideas and concepts about growth. Responsibilty to Fear of living up to some one to being able to manage all parts of your life and more and all can give different answers. Concepts and stories are limitless.
And also this was an amazing video!
I would say that Zack’s Batman is in the fallen hero category and especially when in bvs Alfred mentions how much Bruce has changed into a more hardened, cold, violent person and how it’s not right for him to do the things that he’s doing in the film.
@@legoben98productions My Problem was we never saw the normal version of this take.
Funny enough This batman's simple origin is given but his hero years is not so when we saw it on bvs it feels like this is what the normal version of this character.
Basically ı can't compare the fallen hero if ı never knew the hero.
Or is it an adaption that adapts to the writer's point of view in life which in the case of the film works well?
No hate intended but watching this really just conveyed to me that raimi really did understand the character and how to translate it into a different medium. Peter is smart at the start of the movie, he spouts random facts and no one cares, he gains powers and now has the ability to be a selfish douchebag, uncle Ben’s death brought him back down to earth, like an anchor. In Spider-Man two uncle Ben’s message is even further solidified. The plot points are made more subtle because it’s a movie and there are no thought bubbles. He didn’t want to just outright state the characters motivations because that would be dumb and not as impactful
Where does he say that the points need to be super obvious? Besides in the movie they are incredibly obvious. He has a literal prophet like dream with his uncle Ben. That shits pretty on the nose. He’s saying the the movie isn’t comic accurate. It’s a different character, that’s fine. It’s still a good take. But saying he “understood the character” is wrong. He made his own version of the character with the aspects he thought were important as well as making new ones. It wasn’t comic accurate, and it wasn’t meant to be.
Yet you seem like the guy who would trash any other version of spiderman for doing anything slightly more comic accurate
@@yourfatboy5359 based off what? I don’t like mcu Peter because I don’t enjoy Tom Holland’s portrayal of him, plain and simple if u do that’s fine. I’m just stating opinions here. U seem like the type of guy to hate on people for doing that.
@@Chevycamaroman317 I said it’s more subtle than a 60s comic, that’s not saying much.
@@jamesmcgiffin8782 now who said i was talking about mcu Spiderman
This. This is exactly why I like Tom Holland’s spider-man. He’s growing up like any other kid rather than the previous two who were growing up, but seemed to already be there already.
The other ones did grow up too normaly, they just did it faster because it wasnt like today that they leave almost everything to other movies and sequels, back then they created a story with the character evolving, learning and growing up, the end, and then if they can thet make a sequel and in that sequel he learns new things, now they want to put most of the development of the characters in the sequel, for me that feels like a waste of time and really looks inconvenient, its too slow and they feel like they have all the time and oportunities in the world to just do it later in a sequel or not do it at all
Tom Holland’s movies had little to no growth. I never felt any change in character and anything Peter did had zero consequences compared to the raimi’s trilogy.
I feel that the essence of being Spider-Man is that it isn’t fun to be Spider-Man. He is relatable in a way that he has a life filled with consequences. I see Tobey’s Spider-Man and I think that he has it rough man. I can relate to that. I see Tom Holland’s Spider-Man and all I think about is how cool it would be if I were in his shoes.
I mean the new movies are fun and all but as a movie, the Sam raimi Spider-Man were more enjoyable for me.
@@playerone4715 but thats the point, spiderman is supposed to be like captain america, a shining beacon of hope, not to be a beacon of "damn im sad", dont get me wrong i love the raimi trilogy, but i think with everything happening on spiderman media, i think it just gets too much credit to the point noone would like to see another spiderman movie becuase it isnt made my sam raimi and isnt set in the raimiverse
@@joaquinthecactusman5742 Nah, I see where you’re coming from but I disagree with your first point.
Spider-Man was originally created by Stan Lee as a hero who is relatable. Back then, heroes were viewed as unattainable perfection. They were too “perfect”. Nothing wrong with a bit of escapism but it was about time to make a character that resonates with the audience.
Stan Lee decided that just like average people, Peter would have a lot of problems. He had a tough time getting a girl, he had financial problems, he had friend problems, he had his parental problems etc.
This is something that the average joe could relate to. Spider-Man was a beacon of hope not because of how perfect he is but because of how he chooses to be Spider-Man despite the problem it brings. No matter how badly Spider-Man causes Peter trouble, he still chooses to put on the mantle cause he believes it’s the right thing to do.
That is the key to Spider-Man’s inspiration. Not by how great Spider-Man’s life is but by how tough it is. Being Spider-Man is the symbolic representation of doing the right thing. No matter the consequence of the ‘right thing’ we ought to do it.
@@playerone4715 yeah i like consequences and problems like that, the mcu peter have personal problems too, its not as big as raimis but there still is, all im saying is that people like to gloss over that and hate the mcu spiderman because of bias but i do agree with you with relatable spiderman, mcu spiderman is relatable in a diffirent way, its more of a child becoming a superhero relatable, his arc is making the ironBOY to a spiderMAN that kind of relatable
Rumor has it HiTop is still seething with rage from this video.
Him to his Raimi poster "you can't count on anyone, especially your heroes"
@@downspiralLOL
I don't think characters should be held to the same characterizations they were introduced with, like you imply in this video. Especially when you have a character that's decades old. Growth and rebirth is common thing with comic book characters, like Batman. Batman has been "remade", going through many iterations that apply the same principles (Bruce Wayne, orphan boy, trains his skills, Batman) but vary drastically in tone and story. And that's what Sam Raimi did with his trilogy. He made a different Spider-Man, one that could represent the themes he wanted to tell and not contained to the OG run. And the fact that his interpretation still stands as the baseline today shows how strong his stories were and how influential those movies are.
He just ignored every other time peter mourned uncle ben before the raimi movies came out.
@@rigzmoviediaries654 he just talked about og run until the end of No more spider-man arc.
I think I can agree with you partially, I also don't think characters have to be held to the same characterization. However, I think what the video is trying to imply (haha) is that Sam Rami's films have replaced what was the original arc for Spider-Man into something popular, yes, but also as of writing this a replacement for the what the character was originally about.
The problem isn't changing the the character to suit a new age or narrative, thats not what the video is trying to say. The problem that is being addressed is the people saying the Rami movies should be highest standard on the characterization of Spider-Man when it could be argued that the original comic books, which aren't being represented in the movies, should be the baseline. Then, these same people will stomp and scream (not all, but the ones who do, do it loudly) when other Spider-Man media does not live up to the principles of the Rami movies, even though those movies are in themselves changing the original portrayal of the character.
Its hypocritical, to say the least and for those who think its what Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wanted for the character are just ignorant. Though I should say that, like all art, comic books are subjective.
@@rigzmoviediaries654 No he didn't. He is focusing on the first leg of the original run.
andrew garfield…..
I’m honestly really glad for this video. Mostly because what you say is right, how you should be respectful to every interpretation of Spider-Man.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Raimi trilogy. Only a lot of the more toxic Raimi fans always seem to talk down to the fans of Garfield and Holland Spider-Man under the guise of saying that they are not “the definitive Spider-Man”. Either because Garfield is “too cocky” or “too confident” to be Peter Parker. Or because Holland doesn’t mention Uncle Ben which gives him that annoying “Iron Boy Jr” nickname.
It’s heartbreaking to see some fans act so hateful to each other over which Spider-Man is the best, when we should just cherish how much media we have of the webslinger. It’s not that I’m glad that Spider-Man 2 was showed to be flawed in the video. I’m glad that the movie is brought down to Earth, seen more as another interpretation instead of a Holy Bible of who Spider-Man truly is like some fans seem to believe.
But yeah. I really should read Stan Lee’s comic run of Spider-Man. It honestly sounds like an interesting read after watching this video.
And I am tired of always having to defend myself for not liking the Raimi Trilogy.
That's a good point you made. It's not that the Raimi trilogy is flawed simply for using another interpretation for Spider-Man as a character, it's that it has been canonized into something that it is not. An infallible portrayal of Stan Lee's character that is the holy grail. It's simply another take on the character, but too many fans of the original trilogy fail to understand that.
@@ebenade1 Frankly, the issues I have with the Raimi trilogy have little to do with the interpretation of the character, but with the all over the place quality of the acting, the predictable plotting and the fact that they are basically telling the same story three times, resetting the character at every opportunity. Oh and the flags. I really can't watch that thing withoutout laughing about the ridiculous flags.
@@swanpride okay, boomer normie.
If you read the actual comics, it’s the opposite of this man’s videos.
This is something that I truly believe. Spider-Man is more than one character he is a template for people to create their own characters. Tom Holland is my favorite because we got to see the character arc of Peter Parker changing through phases of his life and grow into the role of Spider-Man. When we first see Peter in Civil War he is both very nervous to meet Iron Man in person and during the plane fight we can tell that he doesn't actually want to hurt anyone on Captain America's team. Homecoming is about him learning that he doesn't need to be recognized as a big time Avenger to help people, Tony takse away the Stark suit but he still defeats the Vulture in his homemade suit and Toomes respects him. Infinity War and Endgame show him working alongside Tony and Doctor Strange as equals but in his mind he fails here first because he died without stopping Thanos from killing half the universe and then because he couldn't save them without losing Tony. Far From Home is the result of him feeling like a failure Nick Fury knows that he is ready to be an Avenger but Peter doesn't believe it himself which is why he believed giving EDITH to Mysterio was the responsible thing to do and when he discovers Beck is a villain he immediately tries to warn Fury and take the glasses back
Ah, Rosie I love this boy! This is a very brilliant summary of MCU Spider-Man’s character arc, which is very interesting. And one that perfectly mirrors the Lee/Ditko era Spidey in his high school years, finding his place in a world populated by other big time superheroes. Johnny Storm/Human Torch was Peter’s idol and role model and has always been the first superhero he’d ever compare himself to when doubting himself as a superhero. The same goes for the MCU Spider-Man. MCU Peter has always looked up to Tony Stark/Iron Man and saw him as a role model and someone he wishes he was as popular as. And in times of quitting, both Peters learned that even the superheroes they grew up idolizing have flaws, imperfections, and aren’t perfect. And upon learning that, he always immediately regains the motivation to put on the mask again, go back out there, and try his best. MCU Spider-Man is actually way more brilliant than people give him credit for.
Okay, boomer normie.
@@devinjabairemoss cap.
@@ventusvanitas7544 No need to be toxic my guy
@@train4292 you late
My Dad (Who’s a life long Spider-Man fan) once said on the topic of the Rami Trilogy: “They’re fine movies, just not good Spider-Man movies.”
Your Dad is freaking right. I may have grown up on the Raimi movies and I still love them to bits, but after reading the comics, I agree with him
There still better then what came after for the most part
Me to HiTop films after reading this: well well, how the turn tables.
Are you sure he ain’t getting confused with the MCU films? Lmfaooo
@@thebestofthebest5724 They MCU films are more faithful to Stan's original first 100 issue run than Raimi's. Raimi's movies just shaped the idea of what Spider-man should be in most people's heads because their reach.
What I know about spider man is that he suffers. Peter questions staying spider-man a lot of times throughout the 60’s and 70’s. And I get the impression that in some way, Spider-Man 2 adapts both the Spider-Man no more arc and the If this be my Destiny arc, where the weight of being Spider-Man is shown as being more emotional than the physical weight shown in ASM 33. In that arc Peter is directly responsible for May getting sick, his friends all think he is a dismissive jerk, and it all culminates in him throwing off that massive weight to continue fighting. Spider-Man 2 carries the spirit of those books more than it does “Spider-Man no more.” It also takes from the first appearance of the Sinister Six and that four armed arc against morbius as well. I love spider-man 2 a lot. Watching Peter get dumped on in every conceivable way and still decide to be Spider-Man is, *chef’s kiss* wonderful. And I do think the burning apartment sequence does do a good job to show how Spider-Man needs to act. It’s heartbreaking to hear, and as Peter realizes that he let someone die for his own selfishness is phenomenal. I know it’s different from Lee’s run, but I cannot say it is not Spider-man. I am glad the other films are getting more credit for accurately adapting Peter though. Peter is a pretty immature jerk sometimes.
This is exactly what I've been thinking
I always said the trilogy was over rated but not bad
exactly after a recent rewatch it's really overrated by many fans, i still love it but holy shit it's not a perfect spider-man
This video really reinforces my belief that some hybrid of our three film adaptations of SM would be perfect. They all tackle a different aspect of the original work and make it the biggest part of their respective films
There is…so much about this video that I have strong disagreement with. I don’t even know where to start.
This video is genuinely terrible, I can't tell if he's trying to be disingenuous on purpose or not.
Same bro 🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️
@@unknownninja4239 It is? How’s that?
I still believe That Spider-Man 2 is The MOST "Spider-Man" Spider-Man film. Yes, you are right that It doesn't encapsulate Stan's Peter but it still represents aspects, but not just Aspects of Stan's but aspects of Stern's, Conway's, and even DeMatteis. The world lends itself to the retro 60s aesthetics reminiscent of the Original Cartoon but also draws influences from ALL of Spider-Man's stories.
Another aspect is that the No More storyline is really half of the film, with the other half being dedicated to the philosophical dichotomy of Octavius and Peter. Even this aspect pulls from other comics Like "If This Be My Destiny" being seen in the train scene which I believe Thematically is done better here than in Homecoming, even using aunt May to tie together both themes of "Holding On" to what's most important, which I believe is What makes this the most important Spider-Man Film. Spider-Man is Responsibility driven, philosophically no matter what disparity or challenge peter comes across whether it pertains to him or not if he has the ability to help it is his upmost duty to do so, even if he has to give up what he wants le most even his dreams.
Back to Octavius, He mirrors Peter as He is unwilling to make the sacrifice that Peter makes everyday, unwilling to use his powers responsibly as he would need to give up what HE values most. To Octavius he WAS "Holding On" like Peter, but the difference is to what; When Peter lost his powers he lost his reason for responsibility so he let go of them and with that he let go of Uncle Ben, his Moral Center. With Octavius He lost his Moral Center with Rosie but held onto His dreams, and with dreams comes power, Leaving Octavius with all the power but no responsibility and Peter with No Power and all the responsibility that He chooses to ignore, Two similar men that lead down two different pasts.
The reason I see this as the MOST "Spider-Man" Spider-Man Film is that even through all the decades and all the writers one thing has persisted with the character and has been there since Issue #1, "With Great Power, there MUST also come Great Responsibility, and that is no more prevalent than with Spider-Man 2.
Raimi was just finding a way to incorporate what he loved about the mytho's . cant be a play by play...Raimi made a cinematic love letter to how he see's spiderman . i love this video...peter parkers characterisation varies based on the iteration. He was more of a jerk in the 90's animated series...and he's more earnest and pure hearted in the spectacular spiderman. Depends on your interpretation as a reader...and also the people writing him at the time..but its true...peter does have a jerky/ selfish side...if you look at the character's entire history...his true struggle might really be about self improvement which just so happens to entail being more responsible with the great power fate has cursed or blessed him with. Hail cthulu
Raimi fanboys need to watch this lol
We don't all think the movies are good because they're accurate. Some of us recognize that all spidey films go for the "ultimate" comics
@@Frogman1212 Thats no problem but it seem that is the main use of shitting on other spiderman incarnations because they aren't sucking off uncle ben all day like the raimi one
@@xXSonTJXx the thing is, uncle ben became more important in later spiderman comics even previous to the raimi movies, so uncle ben became a really important character not just because of sam raimi, raimi just managed to reach a lot of more people with this movies the importance the character have, and know to this day uncle ben should be relevant because of all the importance he gained through the years thats why it doesnt feel rigtb tha the mcu doesnt give the character the relevance it deserves
The best Spider-Man is Nic Cage as Spider Noir. Everyone else is wrong
Ayy u watch this guy too, awesome
YESSS I love this series!!
Prepare for a really really really strong focus on Stan Lee's comics this season 😁
@@ImplicitlyPretentious aw heck yeah!!
"Spider-man doesn't look back, he always looks forward" God your videos are amazing, I've watched like all of them in two weeks lmao
For y'all to say that Peter letting go of being spider-man because people are essentially mean to him or because he gets tired it, is a better depiction of spider-man is crazy 😂. Peter letting go of spider-man because it's affecting his personal life on a critical level is far more relatable and understandable.
I mean, he DOES get tired of it in Spider-Man 2 which is partially why his powers started acting up (which happens in the earlier comics).
Everyone says that MCU Spider-Man isn’t comic accurate when the sam ones aren’t as well that doesn’t mean neither is worse than the other, I’m like you I like sams interpretation but doesn’t mean MCU is so bad
Being ridiculed for doing what you do and having the thought to quit is still relatable. People may not know it, because with negative emotions, someone says something negative can get to them really badly, these kinds of things are more relatable to people dealing with having negative thoughts with their surroundings.
actually him quitting being Spider-Man because of constantly being treated like crap and he gets tired of it, is relatable too. It's part of why many people quit being youtubers or other public figures deleting their online accounts because it becomes tiresome to do something if all the result of that is, is people constantly treating you like crap
He stopped being Spider-Man because he was losing his powers, nearly losing every job he got, lost his girl and countless more. This dudes misinterpreted Spiderman's struggle in the movie so hard. So what if uncle Ben wasn't too much of an anchor in the comic? It was a better change and it gave him far more depth one would expect from Spider-Man.
Literally saw the title and my first thought was: “man these rami fanboys are about to pissed like never before” 🤣
This is what I love about Spider-Man stories, neither are bad they’re just different. There’s different interpretations of the story for different people.
This video completely changed my opinion on Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man. Well done.
Yes andrew Garfield's spiderman/peter parker is comic accurate (been saying that for years)
His beginning his uncle and all of that i can go on and on but im pretty sure you understand now
Being comic accurate doesn't change the fact that it's a poorly made movie. It's cool if you like it and disagree, but more things should matter in a film than accuracy
@@jmorales09 tasm 1 was good
I very much enjoyed this video. As someone that has grown up with the Raimi trilogy and someone that has grown up with Spider-Man, I’ve always wanted to know the differences because I’ve always found it hard to acknowledge which movie version I should like when I’ve ultimately come to the conclusion that I like all of them. Each of them have strong merits, but I’ve always been drawn to the MCU Spider-Man more. I don’t know, but there is just something that you’ve said in these videos that have helped me reaffirm my stance of just liking the character in general and helped me reaffirm my desire to like all versions of Spider-Man. I can’t wait for the next part of this series.
@Moowii-K🌀🔥 same, I literally grew up with the raimifilms (idk I loved spiderman 3 before) yet I'm much more drawn to MCU spidey
Guess people needs to read actual comics and not rely on edited videos.
This is a really great video. I honestly don’t think this makes Spider-Man 2 a lesser film at all. I think they make the concept work, although I can’t help but love the true meaning of Spider-Man giving up his characters in the comics- as you said, his life doesn’t actually improve, but the crime world does, it grows. Also what you said about uncle Ben was actually pretty great. This is definitely a hard video for a Raimi fan, but I can’t help but agree with what you say.
Overall, both the comic and the film are great imo. But yeah, Spider-Man 2 isn’t a perfect adaptation of the story, or even the comics as a whole. I honestly feel like the trilogy more or less gets the character right😳 although all in all, you can’t beat the source material 😎
I still don't see how his life improved when he stopped being Spider-Man. I mean he was able to catch up with his university and aunt may forgave him, but let's be real she was gonna forgive him anyway. Other than that, quitting the mantle of Spider-Man still left him with a dead end job, late on rent, mj was still going to get married to someone else and harry still hated him. I get that after he throws the costume away they try to have a happy montages of him walking around, but his life never really became better when he stopped being Spider-Man.
@@junaydfisher211 I think it was mainly to do with the school stuff and the fact that he could at least attempt to be there for MJ. But looking back on it, they didn’t dive too much into it ig
I have been completely unaware of various Spider-Man fan factions up until now. ... and I think I'll go back to being unaware of them. Dr. Strange, sir? I have a request!
That’s the one thing I wish more people realized about the original run. Peter was a jerk. Before and after he got powers. He was a petty spiteful vengeful jerk. Being Spider-Man didn’t make him a hero. It was uncle ben’s death that made him realize the consequences of his actions. Spider-Man’s origin is a warning almost. Not an aspirational tale of a hero getting powers and doing good.
It' s bullshit,peter before obtaining the superpowers was a normal boy, marginalized and bullied by his peers whom he rightly detested.Calling him a jerk just because he wanted to be respected by those who mocked him or because he gave more importance to his family than the whole world shows how much hypocrisy there is among people.Many people in the same position as peter would think the same way, but that doesn't make them jerks but only human.Peter is just a self-centered, immature teenager who gets his head high about the superpowers he's got, but still remains a nice guy who doesn't make fun of others for no reason.The real asshole is Flash, and to say that peter is an asshole would be like putting them on the same level, but the truth is that Flash is thousand times worse.
It's very interesting the fact that everybody always say that Tobey's and Holland's spidermen are the most accurate and yet thematically everything you mentioned is exactly what Andrew's Spiderman is about, actually the main differences you pointed out are the differences between Raimi's and Webb's Spiderman movies.
That's why Andrews' portrayal is my favourite. I wish his movies weren't so underrated.
@@commanderspyder5432 same
@@commanderspyder5432 So true. Andrew only has a couple changes, but they aren't too distracting. I really want them to make a third movie.
I think he actually made a video saying that Andrew’s Peter is the most accurate (and his favorite)
It's curious, but every once in a while I go back to read the Lee run and it's some of the most fun I ever have with these stories. Glad to know there's always something new to identify each visit like you pont it out.
Don't forget Steve Ditko and John Romita influence in the Stan Lee run, it's their run on Spider-Man too
I’ve always imagined a live action adaptation of Lee and Ditko’s Spider-Man taking place in the 1960’s instead of the modern day like we’ve always had with every Spider-Man film over the years. That would be cool and refreshing to see.
Would be amazing if they did Spider-Man Life Story as a live action series. And every decade being a separate movie!
That´s what fan-film Spider-Man Lotus is doing! Look it up, it hasn´t come out yet but I belive it´s gonna be great
@@juaniferritto3249 Oh I looked that up. Seems like it inspired by Spider-Man Blue. 😊 Thanks for the rekommendation 👌
Would be more true to Ditko’s character no doubt. Stan had nothing to do with the character though. Stan was bit of a hack that took credit for artists works.
Raimi can change all that he wants. The problem is with the fans who made his films the gold standard.
I think its not taken into the account the fact that Spider-Man 2 borrowed from Amazing Spiderman #50 and Amazing Spiderman Annual #1 where Peter temporarily loses his powers due to wishing he didnt have them. Spiderman 2 combines these two stories
Exactly how do you loose biological powers by wishing them away. That's like saying you can wish your arm away by simply not liking it. His powers aren't magical you know
@@dhakshkamra1553 true 😂 but it seemed to be a psychological thing. U can read about it in Amazing Spiderman Annual No. 1
But those two are completely different storylines with no similarities to mix that's the point
Even if he want to be Spider-Man he can't because his powers are gone
I know he blabbers about it in comics but since this version is not talkative you never know what is happening that's what makes raimi movies mid because their Peter is so mid
@@lukeskywalker9506 almost forgot about this comment 😂. Get ur point about raimi peter being too silent but mixing comic storyline is a common thing like Iron Man 2 with Demon in the Bottle and Armor wars. Plus TASM 50 and TASM annual 1 both deal with a similar issue, being Peter wishing he wasn't Spiderman
Spidey does change in the Raimi movies. He definitely matures especially over Spiderman 2 and Spiderman 2 sets him up for his hubris in Spiderman 3. You can enjoy them both for their take on the Webslinger, and no one has ever said that the Raimi films aren't "Raimi's interpretation". People think they're closer to Stan Lee's vision than others but however true that may or may not be doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
I love your content, but this is a genuinely terrible interpretation of both stories.
In my opinion, the differences between the three live action Spider-Men and Stan Lee's Spider-Man are what makes the movies interesting. Each version goes through different personal problems, therefore giving a new perspective each time and allowing for some sort of relatability. It's almost like opening the character up to more people. Obviously we all have our preferences, but where the comics are one continuous story with different arcs that may collide, the movies offer more confined arcs with less of the continuity.
Bro does no one know about Steve ditko
Cool stuff, but your rant about how the Raimi movies transformed the role of Uncle Ben is partially incorrect. While the movies may have popularized it, Ben's role into a Jesus like figure really started with the Ultimate Spider-Man comics.
He didnt say the raimi movies started it. He states other incarnations contributed to it.
Didn’t the 90s TAS Spider-Man glorify Uncle Ben as well? Especially in the multiverse episode
This video makes it seem that the sam raimi trilogy was the only series that glorifies uncle ben. But in reality uncle Ben has been glorified multiple times way before the sam raimi trilogy came out
It’s ironic that Sam Raimi was brought to directing the movies because he was a massive Spider-Man fan who owned tons of the old comics, but his films deviate from them. Could maybe be someone like Alvin Sargent since he was the main screenwriter for 2. Maybe he didn’t read the comics or Raimi was cool with this new vision even though he should have known it will change things.
I can commend the amount of effort that went into this video but the ideas it conveys are disingenuous
1. MJ deciding to stay with Peter no matter the risk is taken directly out of a story by Gerry Conway (one of the greatest Spider-Man writers of all time) called Amazing Spider-Man Parallel Lives which explores well..the parallels between Peter and MJ’s live’s, what brings them together, what brings them apart. Much like the Raimi films, Peter is conflicted about being with MJ because of the danger and fear it could inflict on her and people closest to him, but mj tells him that if he continues to live/think like that, he’ll only be half-alive, half of himself, Raimi did an incredible job when it came to adapting this story and I don’t think it’s comparable to Peter and Betty’s relationship in the ditko run as it’s a very different dynamic we’re working with.
2. Not only is Ben mentioned more than 3 times in ditko’s run (he’s even mentioned more than once in ASM #1 which you use in the video) I’m surprised you didn’t talk much about The final chapter of the master planner arc which is a very pivotal moment in Lee’s run that showcases ben’s importance and how it ties into Peter’s resolve to lift the rubble in order to save may, and if we look past just the first 100 issues, in ASM #181 Peter declares that Spider-Man only exists because of Ben Parker and that as long as Spider-Man lives, ben’s memory is being honoured, I’d also suggest reading ASM #-1 as that entire story’s message is that peter engulfing himself in the world of comic books and superheroes makes him forget the true heroes/people he has in his life like uncle Ben. I get that you’re sole focus is on the ditko run but you’re spreading misinformation on the comics as a whole, bens importance is something that’s been part of the character’s mythos decades before the Raimi films, they didn’t inflate his importance, I’d actually argue the comics have emphasized his importance more than any adaptation. It’s also worth noting the Spider-Man vs Wolverine storyline in the 80s does indeed confirm Ben said the line, this wasn’t influenced by other Spider-Man media. They took influence from the comics themselves
3. A newspaper showing “Crime up by 75%” and showing crime running rampant in the city is not vague at all, it’s not the same as the kingpin and criminal underworld taking this opportunity to rise up but it conveys the same message very clearly and writing off the individuals being negatively affected by Spider-Man’s absence as “randos” can be used against the old people, handicapped people and infants that got robbed in ASM #50, both are there to serve the same purpose, that people need Spider-Man.
4. Spider-Man 2 slowly shows us that Peter not being Spider-Man doesn’t make much of a difference just as ASM #50 does, before he even becomes Spider-Man again, he’s still not happy with the way things are, hence why we have peter pondering at his window after the burning building scene “am I not supposed to have what I want? What I need? What am I supposed to do” because he genuinely believed not being Spider-Man would make things better for him and that wasn’t the case, in the end he realizes the key to his atonement is balance.
5. And lastly, no raimi did not drastically change Peter’s origin, while I can agree Peter’s resentment towards the world isn’t strongly conveyed in well…almost any adaptation at all besides maybe TAS (I’m surprised you use this criticism for raimi but then bring up mcu Spider-Man as an example of a good adaptation) but Peter Parker has been shown in these movies to be a jerk when he’s met with fame and recognition that fuels his ego, I think the best example of this are the scenes in Spider-Man 3 prior to even getting the symbiote so I don’t think it’s far fetched to say peter wasn’t particularly a perfect kid before the spider bite, these are innate character flaws within him. I also think your point about the origin can be used against the spectacular Spider-Man as well since they pretty much do the raimi origin almost beat for beat there and peter isn’t necessarily a huge jerk there.
Raimi Peter’s growth in Spider-Man 2 consisted of him believing at first he had to abandon Spider-Man to pursue his dreams, to believing he had to abandon his dream to pursue being Spider-Man only to realize neither were the case, this isn’t a “loop” it’s very clear character progression.
And no, MCU Spider-Man did not adapt ASM 50 more accurately. If anything his motives for not wanting to be Spider-Man there are very similar to Spider-Man 2 (pursuing mj and his own selfish desires as a means to escape emotional turmoil) in that movie, he wasn’t quitting because he believed it was the right thing to do, I think you’re confusing Peter’s established motives with his reasons for giving away Edith later in the film.
This video comes off as someone doing everything they can to twist information in the comics, raimi films and other Spider-Man media as a whole as a means to get back at criticisms made towards MCU Spider-Man. That’s all I have to say really
@Erik Kemeey 1. I literally bring up how he twists the original run and excludes ASM 33 (part of the lee/ditko run btw) which further emphasizes ben’s importance. Ben was very much a moral anchor in that chapter and the Spider-Man mythos as a whole from the beginning. The annuals even go in depth on this too. Not only does he lie about Ditko/Lee’s run but he makes broad statements about the Spider-Man mythos as a whole that aren’t true which is why it’s important to bring up these later issues and he believes he can easily get away with it by saying “I’m only talking about the Stan lee comics” regardless, he is wrong.
2. He uses FFH as an example of ASM #50 done right even though his motives (especially involving MJ) are very similar to Spider-Man 2, Peter even tells mysterio he didn’t want to help because he wanted a perfect plan to get with MJ on his vacation and it’s all ruined. So yeah, I think he’s being hypocritical here. Both FFH and SM 2 have peter either want to quit or in FFH’s case, settle down a little, because of his own selfish desires, wanting to escape responsibility and wanting to get with mj.
3. I know he doesn’t hate raimi, but his points are still misleading and disingenuous thus why I’m combatting those points.
Also, quickly adding, I think using the “he’s comparing it to Lee’s run specifically” isn’t a strong argument because it advocates that those comics the raimi films take from also aren’t true to the character which isn’t the case at all
@@toxin4609
I agree
@Erik Kemeey by saying Ben was only mentioned 3 times (which is wrong) and intentionally excluding Issue 33 and the annuals when discussing ben’s importance in the lee run and making broad statements about his role in the mythos that are entirely wrong (like the raimi films inflating ben’s importance, or that MJ getting back with Peter aren’t true to the character) it gives his audience a false impression that the raimi films over exaggerated or flipped these elements despite these things being present in the comics which isn’t good (especially considering most of his audience likely doesn’t read the comics) I’d respect this video more if he did make a small effort to highlight that the raimi films took from other writers as well as lee so people don’t get the wrong idea but he continued to make these broad statements multiple times in the video. Even if the video did this, I’d still disagree with the sentiment that the raimi films got Lee’s Spider-Man wrong but I could at least appreciate it for being a little more honest.
And I know why Peter gave the glasses to mysterio, my point is that his reasons for wanting to settle down are almost the same as Spider-Man 2 and are both linked to a romance plot with MJ but he claims in the video that SM2 does this while FFH doesn’t. I’d say that’s a double standard
Also if this video is meant to highlight that every live action Spider-Man has its deviations then I’d agree but his criticisms as to why are what I disagree with. There’s valid criticism to be made towards the raimi films as adaptations but these aren’t it. I also doubt that’s the videos intent considering in this and his mcu videos, he believes it’s a faithful adaptation of lee and constantly sprinkles jabs at raimi Spider-Man in there (like his nwh trailer video)
I have nothing wrong with MCU Spidey fans... I'm not gonna gatekeep my favorite character of all time.
But Jesus those critisms of the Raimi movies are so desperate and disingenuous. To say the MCU Spider-Man is more accurate is fucking hilarious.
@Erik Kemeey 1) The Ben thing is semantics and you know it
2) But Mary Jane IS his one true love. A true for the comics (both the 616 continuity and the Ultimate timeline, which the Raimi universe also takes inspiration from). At the end of the day, there are plenty of girls that came in, but only a handful that actually mattered (Gwen, MJ, Betty...unfortunately, Felicia, and Jean Dewolffe), so they're not considered. It'd be like complaining that TAS Spider-Man is unfaithful because he doesn't have the SPIDER BUGGY.
3) Regardless of his feelings, he had let Mary Jane go. Her decision to say, "hey, don't I get a say in this?" is... well, *her* decision.
Personally, I think the tapestry of the character's history from the original comics is best viewed as a whole rather than trying to isolate just one section of the mythos because that's doomed to fail. Across the decades, what's the most enduring elements of the character, not nitpicking a single scene on screen for not matching up with whatever comic you select at the time. Contradictions happen but the character remains fairly consistent, for better or worse, in terms of actual characterisation. That's not to dismiss Stan Lee, because lord knows I adore the man, but after he left the flagship title, he stopped being the one steering Peter on his path. Comics are a collaborative medium after all. Arguably the influences of Ditko shaped Peter during his era, just as Romita changed Peter during his time as artist, and so on until the present.
Yeah, plus with spider verse and the backstory scenes, I think webb's films especially Tony (in a more forced way) reference alot of spider man's abilities over all these years from the comics (it's just that spider verse felt surpringly alot more natural for a multi-versal threat 😂)
I mean he's literally talking about the storyline the movie adapted. Plus Peter never gets reset like dc. He doesn't have another origin and these comics still are the canon of his time in high school ect.
You nitpick and misinterpret the movie so hilariously...
I even have come to like the MCU Spider-Man, accepting it as a different interpretation of the original comics but lmao that has SO MANY more differences to what anyone would associate as Spiderman, especially in his iconic solo comics.
Fat best friend knowing his identity, basically 2 scenes where his secret identity is a problem in the whole 2 movies, never truly alone, never angry or sad for anything more than one scene at a time... And yeah whether you like it or not, uncle Ben is an integral character in peters life, also literally NO money problems, is accepted by the avengers and given billionaire help immediately,
Idk it's that easy to nitpick. And none of those were misinterpreting the work lmao
He never said Ben wasn't an integral point of his life, he says that because Ben didn't start out as this holy symbol for Peter, him remembering Ben's importance later in his life after he quits hits him double the amount becuase of it. It wasn't so much saying he didn't matter, it's quite the opposite.
@@robertrivera5569 he was basically saying uncle Ben isn't an important spiderman character,
Then scrubs any mention of uncle Ben from Steve Ditkos run... As if it never happened, then ignored every other writers who mentioned it
Very interesting critique.
Personally when I look at all three iterations I'd say how I view it is:
*The Raimi movies* are Raimi Spider-Man movies. Spider-Man through the lense of Raimi: more of a reimagining than an adaptation. It's every thing that makes Spider-Man, Spider-Man for him. Guilt, growth, opening up.
*The Webb movies* are modern adaptations, and personally, more accurate. A Spider-Man adaptation from Marc Webb's perspective. From Peter's attitude to the creepier aesthetic of the first film and how it emulates Ditko's style to the more bombastic, heroic, and colourful aesthetic of the second movie and how it emulates Romita's style(also, on a sidenote, there's a really good re-cut from 604spidey on RUclips, and should definitely be checked out).
*The Watts/MCU movies* still doesn't feel completely Spider-Man to me. I like the ideas. I like the more team up-ey nature of it, I like that it tries to give him a highschool supporting cast, I like Tom Holland as an actor. I just don't like the execution of it all. You bring up the Johnny Storm bit, but I'd disagree a bit on your reading. Peter doesn't really look up to the FF as role models, he looks up to them as friends and as he gets older he grows closer to them from just wanting to join them for money to joining them because they're his friends. That Johnny storm bit(in my eyes) wasn't Peter learning and trying to thank him as a role model, it was him learning and trying to thank him as a friend. And that's why this adaptation irks me the wrong way. In the movies Peter looks up to these heroes, in the comics he looks toward them. Maybe it's different in the ultimate comics(and I hear it's more accurate to those), but for me, that difference throws the whole character off for me. Peter(whether or not you want to agree with me) looks up to people: his wife, his aunt, and yes, his uncle. And in some ways how he views Ben(even if it isn't super literal like in the Raimi movies) is a flaw. Why I like the character so much is because he was one of the first teenage superheroes where his mentor wasn't a superhero, it was his family. It was some blue collar worker and incredibly kind housewife. Anyways, I like the look of Homecoming. The colours pop very well. it subtly feels like a comic imo without going over board.
You echo my thoughts exactly. Especially the Johnny Storm bit. I think he might be overlooking that Peter and Johnny kinda had rivalry at first. But they became great friends afterwards.
Not every Spider-Man is completely comic book accurate, otherwise what’s the point in making different adaptations. I wish more people would be more open to new ideas. It’s like people see something different, and they immediately think it’s bad. MCU Spider-Man and his movies are more family friendly, but it’s not exclusively made for kids like the Ultimate Spider-Man or Marvel’s Spider-Man cartoon shows. This version of Spider-Man is about a teenage boy becoming a man, and if you want to take the name “Spider-Man” literally, it’s an origin story for Peter going from being a Spider-Boy to a Spider-Man. Jon Watts said in an interview for Homecoming that the Home trilogy was meant to be like an origin story. MCU Spider-Man doesn’t just look up to Iron Man; he looks up to the other superheroes in the MCU. He’s not an Iron Man fanboy like how someone like Buddy was a Mr. Incredible fanboy. He just wanted to be as amazing as the other superheroes in the MCU. In Homecoming, Peter wanted to be more than just a Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, and in Far From Home, Peter learned that other superheroes like Iron Man were not perfect.
@@supersaiyanfox9190 yeah, and I'm fine with that. By the end of NWH, I can say that, it did its own thing, and even if I wasn't a fan of all of it, and that's okay. Because by the end of it, you could really say it was telling a Peter Parker story.
I really appreciate this video. I think your final conclusion is correct in that many (including myself) write off the other iterations of Spider-Man too quickly because they don’t fit within what we assume is a more comically-accurate Spidey in the Raimi films. However, I don’t think Raimi’s films fundamentally change Stan Lee’s run of the character. I just think many of the changes that were made had more to do with the confines of the medium. For example:
1. I don’t think we can say that Peter is *not* kind of a jerk before he gets his powers, because he still immediately uses his powers for self gain when he gets them. Would a completely nice guy do that? Also, in a comic book, you have more time to flesh out a character. There’s only so much time in the first film to show who Peter is, set up the story, and make us emphasize with him, as we should.
2. The uncle Ben critique doesn’t make much sense to me. I think it’s pretty simple: making the famous quote come from an actual character in the movie that is important to Peter is more powerful than if it was said non-diegetically in some narration like in the comics. That doesn’t change anything fundamental about him or his motivations. Also, Peter’s origin is *still* wrapped up in Uncle Ben’s death in the comics. I’m not sure how that’s entirely different from what we see in the Raimi films. It just made us care about Uncle Ben more and gave him more of a moral thrust on Peter.
I need to rewatch this and finish my thoughts…but would love to hear what you think.
I just think it’s harsh to say the Raimi films are not really Spider-man-like when they still contained the basic message, IMO. They just had to package it differently.
This did blow my mind! You make good points between the comic and the film. Good stuff.
You explained your points really well and I can see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.
Firstly I agree when you say comic book Peter is all about moving on and change, but I completely disagree when you say that Spider-Man 2 is all about holding onto your beliefs and that Peter doesn't change in that movie.
Peters arc in that film is learning to be Spider-Man because he wants to not because of uncle Ben, that was his mindset at the beginning but when he gave up his responsibilities he was free. However when he saved the kid from the burning building he realised that he can't turn his back away. He feels compelled to save people and do the right thing, not for uncle Ben but for himself, when he gives up Mary Jane again it is because he know's he has to for himself, not for uncle Ben. The whole theme of the film is about giving up the things you want the most even your dreams to do the right thing. Peter was able to MOVE ON from Mary Jane but it was Mary Jane who made her own choice to be with Peter because she has her established reasons for loving him. This is reinforced by the fact that Peter didn't even show up at her wedding day, Peter in the first half of the film was chasing her and constantly trying to get his way but by the end he learned to stay away from her and let her get married in his absence.
I can understand your take but personally I still believe that Raimi's interpretation is the most accurate Spider-Man out of the three and clearly gets the heart and soul of the character.
Side note, I see what you mean about the villains not growing when Peter gives up Spider-Man but what makes this movie great to me is that it chooses to focus more on Peter Parker than Spider-Man, many people have said that Spider-Man 2 is a Peter Parker film and I agree with that, Spider-Man is not the main focus of this film.
Still enjoyed your video tho.
Man this guy is complaining that there's no crime storyline in the movie.. as if that's an actual valid complaint.
And yeah thank you for admitting peter changes in the movie. It's a giant Strawman
@@Courier_333 His complaint is that the Spider-Man side of the story feels less important than Peter's when they should both be equally important
Which is a valid critique
@@hazmat4260 Spider-Man and Peter are the same person
@@Courier_333 You don't say
@@Courier_333 fr tho
Yes they're the same person LITERALLY but the whole idea is Peter lives his life as two people.
In the comics (and some of live action films) they show this by having Peter and Spider-Man both feel like different people with their own separate problems that bleed into each other.
Like in Spider-Man No More, Peter's side of the story is his interpersonal relationships but Spider-Man's plotline has him deal with the growing crime rate.
Where as in this movie adaptation, Spider-Man is just the mask Peter puts on and source of conflict for him. As a result, the Spider-Man side of the story feels underdeveloped.
What do you think of spectacular spiderman in relation to this comic? I know that it gets a lot of Peter's origin from the movie, but I think it works a lot better because it was in the symbiote storyline and not Peter quiting.
Edit: Nevermind I didn't know that you sort of talked about this in spectacular spiderman video.
As I expected, there are raimi fanboys bashing this video and the creator already…
Because the title is stupid asf because Spider-Man 2 captures the core value of Spider-Man is all about
@@Candlelight10 sort of
@@nedmode9412 wdym sort of, not enough jokes? Please
@@Candlelight10 cope
@@nedmode9412 I could do the same thing to you: cope, wow so powerful
"one guy being beaten up, a vague graph, an offscreen rando dies in a fire, and no police are investigating dock ock."
Okay firstly, how would Peter see anymore crime if he's avoiding being Spiderman? That's the point of the story. Maybe you have a problem with the perspectives of the scenes being mainly the main characters and not... Side police officers but whatever..
Or you're mad that the kingpin wasn't in the movie or some crime subplot?
BUt you really mean to tell me you watched the scene of him running into a burning building, almost dying to save one kid... And you don't feel anything hearing that there was another person he didn't know about?
Would you have rather wanted peter to witness the death himself?
That scene isn't even about the consequences of there being no spiderman. It's just the whole theme of the movie which is you have to do good things no matter what even when it blows up in your face...
Why do you keep saying Stan lees
Work but don’t acknowledging Steve ditko
Also, in the comics Peter decides to stop being Spider-Man and in Raimi's SM2 he loses his powers because of his subconscious, taking away his agency and making him a passive character, which is something that has always bugged me about this film.
He loses his powers, he goes to the doctor to find out the issue in an attempt to get better. He originally thought he had no choice but to be Spider-Man because it was the responsible thing to do only to find out that he does have a choice to walk away if he chooses. He then makes the decision to quit being Spider-Man. How exactly is he a passive character in this situation?
you misunderstood, Peter in Spider-Man 2 lost his powers because he was sick of being Spider-Man but kept going because that's what uncle ben would've wanted but then when he realized that his life wasn't getting any better and after he went to the doctor, he chose to drop the suit.
Hitop Films is having an aneurysm watching this😂
I really dislike referring to comic spidey as "real" spidey. It feels almost like invalidating other versions of the character.
I mean he did originate from the comics and almost all of his history was in there and other media (games films cartoons) adapted them from the comics
raimi films shaped a big part of me but people should stop fetishizing raimis interpretation as who spider-man is most accurately
A part of me wants to express that I still feel like the Raimi movies capture the underdog element of spiderman better in almost way, which is crucial to me and the reason why I can't get attached to the newer movies, that and their low-stakes comedy. But I realize that basically almost comes down to how they feel to me.
Being mentored by someone with so much privilege like Tony Stark seems so anti-spiderman to me, but does that say more about Spiderman or about what kind of story I want Spiderman to be? I certainly don't want that character to represent something like that, but was that ever what he was when he started?
I guess what I'm holding onto is that there is an interpretation that gets the spirit of Spiderman. I still can't get behind Watts movies with the focus on spiderman being this big-name hero answering to billionaires, the Webb movies are riddled with this idea that Spiderman is a chosen hero so I can't get behind that, and this video does make a convincing argument that the Raimi movies don't get it either.
To me the Raimi films always felt like the only movies made with legit intention. I guess the idea that no one gets spiderman, or that there was nothing to get about spiderman to begin with, and he has no central moral theme that every adaptation should get right just kinda bums me out I guess.
"Spider-man never looks back" you never read 'Spider-man Blue'
That came out around the same time as the movies
it sucks as a spider-man story tbh. feels way too cw and also it's written by a racist.
i agree that nwh is a better interpretation of spider-man no more, but i also think that sm2 was trying to be its own interepretation of the story instead of doing the same thing
also i think changing characterization is not a big deal as long as the characters hold the same moral values, and once they become spider-man i think all interpretations do hold those same moral values
Brilliant analysis! This is a distinction that needs to be made (or at least more widely appreciated). Spider-Man’s origin story has become a meme at this point, but it’s interesting just how much that’s tied to the film adaptation and not the source material. But I guess that speaks more to the popularity and efficacy of Raimi’s film than anything to do with Lee’s work
3:00 in the comic, everything goes wrong except the romance
In the movie, everything goes well except the romance
I really enjoy these videos of comparing the comics with the movie adaptations. I’d love to see you to do this with other characters at some point. For example I’d love a video comparing iron man extremis and iron man 3, or iron man 2 and demon in a bottle.
Well, Aldrich Killian dies at the beginning of Extremis and Tony doesn't use Extremis himself, so wildly different. Although I have to thank your you for at least knowing Iron Man 3 is an Extremis adaptation. Most people still think it is supposed to be a Mandarin story.
you’re ignoring the very obvious distinct difference between the movies and comics. tobey actually lost his powers due to being mentally overwhelmed
3:53… you don’t truly believe that being spider-man doesn’t make a lot of difference in his life lol.
the reason he missed them in the first place was bc he felt like he had to be spider-man instead. just because the timing of when he quit was bad, doesn’t mean being spider-man doesn’t really change much with his life.
4:59 i find it hilarious that you try to underplay the crime rate rising 75% and that someone died in a fire he could have stopped had he had his powers.
7:26 again completely wrong, Uncle Ben is confirmed to say those exact words in Spider-Man vs Wolverine Issue #1 1987. the fact you’re trying to paint Ben as almost irrelevant is crazy to me, as a lot of his characterization came after his death. so it really doesn’t matter if he was barely shown before he died in 616
7:53 “not particularly smart” ??? yes 616 was *smarter* but they make it so apparent that tobey was also pretty smart compared to the rest in the first movie. there’s so many clips i can chose from that i’m tempted to tell you to rewatch the first half of Spider-Man 1. also, regardless if nobody else wanted to go, the fact that he got bit by the spider was by chance. it’s not like it was fate.
but yes ditko’s spider-man was a “jerk” before the powers, got one thing right 👏🏾
9:48 this is so bad faith it’s crazy lol, when does raimi TRILOGY try to convey to the audience “the nobility of staying the same” refer to uncle ben’s scene in Spider-Man 1 and aunt may’s scene in Spider-Man 2
ngl i’m not gonna finish this video lmaooo
you definitely did not understand the video
@@quads2483
why? cuz i disagree? you sound slow. disprove anything i've said. a few of his points are objectively wrong.
wow, the more you explain, the more I like the sam raimi movies
nah you really educated me, and now i have an even greater appreciation for the character. thank you!
Peter Parker is Mean nice while Miles Morales is spicy kind
I think you argued over something that no one ever really claimed in the first place. And nitpicked like crazy lol. When people say that the Raimi films are the most accurate to the comics, they're comparing them to the other 2 Spider-Men. They're not saying they're the exact copy of the comics to the big screen.
I think you completely missed the point of the rain drops sequence. There's a reason why it's so silly. Because it's not real. Peter THINKS that once he drops Spider-Man, his life will instantly get better. He thinks he'll get to stroll to class, eating a hotdog. Do his homework and get back the girl with no worries. We then quickly see this is not the case. That his decision to drop Spider-Man does have consequences. Crime has gone way up. He can't save people the way Spider-Man could. The rain drops scene is an illusion. He tried to fake himself out, thinking his life was instantly better. But it wasn't. And the guy being mugged, crime gone up 75%, the person dying in the fire, is PLENTY for us to see how dropping Spider-Man has affected the city. It's a movie, lol. We dont have the luxury of dragging out that story for 50 comic issues. We only got 2 hours.
More unnecessary nitpicking. Peter not being enough of a jerk. Again, this movie never claimed to be the comics themselves. It's just a version. Peter still is kind of a jerk. He basically tells Ben to F off, and let's a guy steal a load of cash cause screw the promoter. This is enough for the film to show us how Peter realizes he needs to use his gifts responsibly.
Very weird that you think Raimis Peter didn't grow or change at all. I mean. I shouldn't even have to explain that. Just rewatch the films again, I guess.
I love Spider-Man, and he's my favorite hero. But like I said before. I feel like you argued something that no one's ever really brought up in the first place. I've never heard anyone say that the Raimi films are exactly like the comics. Just that they're the most accurate when comparing all 3 Spider-Men. I think Raimis Spider-Man is the most accurate because in his films, he just completely understands the core of the Spider-Man character better than anyone else. The ENTIRE reason why Spider-Man became the most popular superhero ever, is because of his relatability and his struggles. No one expressed that better than Raimi. Spider-Man 2 isn't an exact copy of Spider-Man no more, or the other original comics. But it's themes and beliefs. It's meaning behind the Spider-Man character, hasn't been done better since. That's why Spider-Man 2 imo, and lots of others, is their favorite film.
He’s not the most comic accurate. Like it’s fundamentally different
@@mero7731Did you even read what OP said? Your comment seems really tone deaf. It’s not anymore accurate than Tom Holland nor Andrew Garfield’s takes. But Raimi still got his essence better than the other two portrayed and had better written plots than the other two iterations which felt more like business to sell toys to blind fanboys and children.
I'd argue that Tobey's spider-man is the LEAST comic accurate, Andrew Garfeild would be the most accurate, Andrew captured more of the original Spider-man more than any other actor, and Tom had the sitcom type of feeling from the first 30 issues. I agree about the raindrops sequence sorta but I'm not gonna get into that. And lets be honest here peter absolutely is not enough of a jerk. From reading both the 616 comics and the Ultimate comics (which those movies are based off of) Peter is a huge jerk, in the movie Peter is just a jerk when he gets powers, in the comics Peter had always been a jerk and his powers were a way to push the world down under his feet. In the movie he is a nice little guy that gets a little too mean when he gets his powers. In the book peter doesn't stop the criminal because he didn't get his money and is acting against one guy, he was tired of being a wallflower and only wanted gain for himself and his entirely selfish actions are the cause of Uncle ben.
For the final point, there are definitely people out there that believe the raimi movies are accurate. There are countless amounts of people that argue online about how Andrew garfeild's Spider-Man was too different from Tobey Maguire's Spider-man and so it wasn't an accurate Spider-Man and the same for Tom. Tobey is the absolute LEAST accurate Spider-Man his story is different, his character arch is different, his characterization is different and his actions are different. that little comment about Spider-Man not being done as good since is your personal opinion, in fact Spider-Man Far From Home did a more accurate job at telling the IDEAS behind Spider-Man No More.
@mukilandhinesh3931 I don't think Tobey is accurate cause he's different from Tom or Andrew. I think he's accurate cause he's the closest to what I read in the old comics. None of the 3 are perfectly accurate. Im not saying Tobeys movies are ripped right out of the comics word for word. Like I already previously said in my original response ... But imo I think Raimi did the best at capturing the epitome of the Spider-Man character the best. Especially SM2. All the main qualities of why the entire world fell in love with the character in the first place aren't shown any better than it was in SM2.
Andrews was a close second. I liked his portrayal a lot. And even tho the movies, especially the second, didn't do so well, I enjoyed his Spider-Man. Toms I'm still waiting to see because so far, he's just been some "Disnified" version of the character. He's just been the Iron Spider. He didn't become Spider-Man until the last 3 minutes of NWH.
You might as well be complaining how different OG Iron Man is to his movie counterpart. things change over time an adaptation is just that and adaptation.
This video is just terrible in so many ways, It's funny that the title is "Spider-Man 2 doesn't get Spider-Man" When you yourself doesn't even get how comic book characters work
There is no such thing as an original version of a character or a definitive interpretation of a character in comics
The whole point of these characters is that they're in constant change
You're literally using a 30 issue long run to reduce a character that has existed for literally 60 years
Also, In many moments of the video you just purposefully misinterpret the Raimi movies, Which is incredibly frustrating when you're trying to make an argument
@@Mrcinemazo9nn I'm not upset over the movie I'm getting upset over this dude's weak ass essay, When you make a video with such a lousy title like that you better have an amazing argument to back it up
You misunderstand, He isn't saying that the Raimi movies are bad he is saying that people shouldn't compare other Spider-Men to Raimi's as if it was the most accurate or best by pointing out how many fundamental changes Sam Raimi made to Spider-man's character
Damn, what peter was thinking when he saw betty really hits home! Btw, this was a great video👍🏽
Good video. As other comments have mentioned, it's not that the Raimi films are a different interpretation of the character, it's that the fans codify it and canonize it as THE interpretation.
Virtually every single superhero film is a departure from the source material. From the OG Superman to Batman 89 to X-Men to the Avengers. That's how adaption and interpretation works. And that's what makes it beautiful.
I don't love the Raimi films because I think they are the "one true way to portray Spider-Man." I love them because they are a masterful INTERPRETATION of the character. That's why I'll always defend Garfield above all. People love shitting on his Peter for being "too cool" and "too much of a jerk." And I'm like, have you READ early Spider-Man? Peter was a jerk from the very beginning!
I love all three big screen versions for how they adapt the material. They're all Spider-Man. It's not about what a film can do to make it as "accurate" to the comic as possible...because comics are ALWAYS shifting in direction, tone, style, and meaning.
Adapting a comic book to film is about filtering the various themes and ideas and messages from that comic through the lens of a film and the filmmakers own interpretation. And on that front ALL THREE versions fascinating takes.
So I always felt a disconnect with the rami trilogy, but couldn't ever put my finger on what turned me off until you spent it out for me here. I personally have a lot of anxieties about becoming stagnant in my life and just running in circles, getting so attached to the ways things are I'll fight to avoid change. I think that internal struggle is why I always super related to spiderman, but feel put off by the rami trilogy. Both have that same message underline core of change, but rami's trilogy answered with stay the same as the world changes while comic spidy is more about changing with the world and taking the opportunity that arise.
Literally how?
@@laststrike4411 if you're question is how does comic spidy change while rami spidy doesn't some easy answers would be how Peter started out as a spiteful child blaming his problems on others. He then got the powers and decided to take what he though he deserved and paid a price for it. He became a good person afterwards. Rami spidy starts as a good kid who starts to use his powers for personal gain before paying a price and having to return to being a good kid after. Besides that peter barely changes in the whole trilogy. He's always a good hearted kid who tries his best to help others and is often oblivious to how others are feeling around him. Compare that to the comics where spidy has to constantly grow and evolve. He began as a nerd with no confidence and the first thing he tries to do as a hero is join other hero teams for validation. He then gives up being spiderman because he's not confident enough to ignore Jameson. He final gains that import self confidence after learning how capable he really is and begins to grow both as a hero and a man. He moves on from high-school flings and finds a girl with similar intrest as him. And after loosing her he reconnects with MJ as they have both finally grown enough to be a healthy relationship
As some have pointed out, Uncle Ben's importance in the Sam Raimi films are sure inspired by Stan Lee, but also by other Spider-Man writers. It's hard to say what's what and what is when Spider-Man is a combination of so many different writers throughout the years. From how I see it, the Spider-Man in the Raimi films is an older Spider-Man set in the events of the Stan Lee run. He's a little bit more figured out, I understand why it was done like that. They wanted to skip the timeline since Superhero movies weren't like they are now where there's so much opportunity to flesh them out and "grow up" with them through multiple movies. This is the one benefit of the MCU Spidey since audiences are growing up with him. Right now he's a Spider Boy and that's okay. I can't wait for the day he grows up to be like the latter issues. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man may not be as accurate, honestly to me none of them are. They get some right and some wrong. Some may do things better than the other, but at the end of the day it's not about 1:1, it's about the spirit and heart of Spider-Man, which I believe is what Raimi got. Take webshooters, Gwen and this and that away, and make a Spider-Man movie from its stripped down core. That's what the original trilogy did for me.
The prominence of Uncle Ben in the Raimi films is inspired by Ultimate Spider-Man, a hugely important and popular other universe reboot of the character just two years before the release of Raimi's Spider-Man. Seven full issues are devoted to Peter's origin, and Uncle Ben plays a huge part.
This version of Peter is a whole lot closer to Andrew Garfield's portrayal, however, which also has Uncle Ben play a prominent role.
Spider-man was in no way as heavily and loyally associated to Johnny Storm as he is with Iron Man in the MCU. Johnny Storm was the other teenage superhero, so Peter paid attention to him and had his fair share of one-upmanship scenarios with him. But he was very much an individualist, and didn't ever feel he needed a role model
The prominence of uncle Ben is inspired by amazing Spider-Man, 616 continuity, mainly. Anyone who tries to say uncle Ben isn’t that important in main Spider-Man canon is out of their fucking minds lol
@@Awesomemusic19 But isn't it from later on in the original run with some of the 90s series too? Maybe it's because the story fast tracks him into college, so Uncle Ben's prominence is lined up to the point in Peter's life when his impact was felt the most.
@@immanuela209 uncle Ben is majorly important to Peter Parker in all eras of Spider-Man, period. Since, and including, the beginning.
@@Awesomemusic19 I'm not arguing that Uncle Ben didn't play a significant role to Peter Parker OVERALL. But the degree in which his impact is felt wanes depending on the interpretation and the point in Peter's life that interpretation takes place in. And it's not wrong for a different interpretation to do this. Period.
@@immanuela209 depends on what you’re trying to imply with this.
I hate how Peter let that guy get mugged in Spider-Man 2.
That's the point. Peter is selfish and it causes harm to those around him. You're supposed to hate it
Yeah I'll always sympathize WAY more with the "always good-hearted" kid who conscientiously chose to have a shitty life, knowin full well he'd get fucked cuz of dat. When push comes to shove, ion give a single fuck abt an angry nerd. The majority of my admiration for spider-man comes from the fact that, even tho he's human n sometimes reluctant, ultimately he'll always choose the Herculean task, the monumental struggle, the unwinnable battle, the selfless sacrifice. Is he gon be broke forever, always strugglin, tired n beat up? Maybe. But you know damn well he won't leave New York hangin.
I think people defend Spider-Man 2 more often because its simply a better made film. The story was simple and character driven. Everyone was well cast. The score was phenomenal. A lot of the action still holds up today, even though tons of other superhero movies have come out since 2004. My love of that movie doesn't stem from how much it took from the Stan Lee run, I just think its a better overall movie than any other Spider-Man movie that's followed it (other than Spider-Verse)
This video is a bad analysis of Spider-Man 2,but what I really noticed but how bad it was is the attempt to compare the film and the comic,”saying that it’s bad because it’s inaccurate”but he did studied well on Stan Lee’s version of Spider-Man,but he did studied badly on the rami trilogy,I know you you’re not trying to crap on the rami films but you did make everyone else misunderstood and crap on the trilogy.
@Erik Kemeey I know he loves it but he says it’s flawed or what I said in my comment bad,you can love something bad,
I prefer homecoming but it’s still the best spidey movie
Yeah I would probably put homecoming above
2 is still better.