Spider-Man 2 doesn't get Spider-Man 

This video is both a follow up to Part 1 of my Stan Lee retrospective and stands on its own: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9cY2_IxRlgs.html

I'm glad someone is pointing out this differences between Raimi movies and Stan Lee's run.

So stan's spidey is changing and growing up. Sam's spidey is holding on to your principles.

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 don’t think either way is better or worse than the other, just different ways of telling the story

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.

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.

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).

"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.

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

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.

This video is already a classic

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.

Rumor has it HiTop is still seething with rage from this video.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Don't forget Steve Ditko and John Romita influence in the Stan Lee run, it's their run on Spider-Man too

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.

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'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.

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.

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

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!

"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

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.”

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!

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 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

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

Raimi can change all that he wants. The problem is with the fans who made his films the gold standard.

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.

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.

This video completely changed my opinion on Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man. Well done.

People need to realize that there will never be a comic book accurate Spiderman on film, no matter how loudly the fans demand it, comic book, video game and cartoon adaptations will never be the same in live action. Spiderman 2 is perfect for what it did and I’m glad it made those decisions.

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.

nah you really educated me, and now i have an even greater appreciation for the character. thank you!

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.

"Spider-man never looks back" you never read 'Spider-man Blue'

Literally saw the title and my first thought was: “man these rami fanboys are about to pissed like never before” 🤣

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.

I think I like the spin Spider-Man 2 put on it. It made Peter’s non Spider-Man life better, so that Jane he decides to become Spider-Man again, it is a much more powerful sacrifice he makes.

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.

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.

Seeing how different the comic Spider-man is from the movie adaptation is just mind bogling

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.

YESSS I love this series!!

The whole moving on vs. standing fast reminds me so, SO much of your analyses of Captain America and Tony Stark. There is so much tying these characters together and I am here for it.

I hate how Peter let that guy get mugged in Spider-Man 2.

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.

Hitop Films is having an aneurysm watching this😂

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 did blow my mind! You make good points between the comic and the film. Good stuff.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Spider-Man #1 wasn't Spider-Man's debut. It was Amazing Fantasy #15.

I think this video has completely changed how I view Spider-Man as whole and in his entirety..... thank you.

I am very glad someone finally put it so eloquently. Well done.

There is…so much about this video that I have strong disagreement with. I don’t even know where to start.

I always said the trilogy was over rated but not bad

I'm tired of people thinking adaptations are flawed because they differ from the the source material

I'm glad you made this video. So many people try to shame Stan as a writer and say what he is/isn't responsible for. But his work on Spider-Man is undeniable and one of the best comic runs in history. What we love about Spidey all came from the man himself and it changed comic books forever.

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

Raimi fans are now upset that comic book Spider-man isn't comic accurate.

Thanks for this retrospective. I totally missed this. To grow is to change into someone who is better than you were previously.

You brought up so many things between the movies, comics and audiences that I’ve been thinking for such a long time. Thank you so much for this video essay!

This is an amazing video essay I.P my boi. I love Spider-man, words cannot describe what he meant to me growing up, thanks to the movies, games, and ultimate comics. This vindication of his origins pulls a string in my heart, a puts a smile in my face. Thank you. Indeed, the themes and narrative progression of this first issues deliver better the theme of growing up, being more grounded and resilient to be able to tackle human affairs and responsibilities more efficient and coming out standing.

3:00 in the comic, everything goes wrong except the romance In the movie, everything goes well except the romance

Whatever version of Spiderman it is, I'll always love him.

Didn’t the 90s TAS Spider-Man glorify Uncle Ben as well? Especially in the multiverse episode

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

This actually reveals a concern going into No Way Home. You pointed out that the Raimi trilogy has Peter basically going in a loop of a character "arc." No progression like in the MCU entries. And just as we hit a monumental shift at the end of Far From Home, Raimi enters immediately with making Tom on a quest to essentially reset any progression made; to go back to where Peter started at, rather than propel him forward into uncertainty and growth. (Obviously, we don't know if that's actually going to happen or not, but it seems worth noting).

As a super rami die hard I appreciate the length you went to pointing out the differences. Thank you for spreading around Stans writing for those of us who havent bothered to pick his works up for ourselves. Keep up the good work!

This is so good! Thank you for your hard work analyzing why the writing for the original Spiderman comics had such great characters! I would love to see a video on how Mary Jane as a character grew so much through the comics

This is great. I’m in a time in my life where I need to let go and move forward with a lot of things, and this essay was such a great outlook on the role of change in life. :)

I still stand by that the Raimi Spider-Man movies are the best superhero movies 😗

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 RU-vid, 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.

Also I wonder if Holland will ever encounter or give context to what happened with Uncle Ben that night and whether he was a real jerk before then.

I think every live action iteration each represent important aspects of Spider-Man, but none of them are entirely the character. We should celebrate their differences as their own people but also understand that we don’t need the perfect Spider-Man to understand the character. We just need a worthwhile journey of a boy finding his way in the world, and we’ve always had that, for better or for worse

Was about to sleep but now i need to watch this! :)

U forgot to mention trauma

The point of showing Peter's life getting better is that not having the big responsability of spiderman in his back takes away a lot of his problems, and then the message is that life as a superhero is hard and will always be hard so he has to learn the hard way that having great responsability is really damn difficult Atleast that's how i see it

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 😎

wow, the more you explain, the more I like the sam raimi movies

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.

"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...

You came to know Spidey from the comics. For me (as a child) was the Marvel Saturday morning cartoon. It obviously took its story from the comics, because I also remember him being a callus jerk in ep.1.

Thank you, someone had to finally say it

Thank you for this video. When I was a teen, my brother and I collected what was an almost complete run of Silver Age and early Bronze Age Spider-Man as they appeared. He was the real Spider-Man fan, but I read all of those comics several times. My contact with Spider-man over those many years since has been mainly through the films, the TV series (not the cartoon) and The Avengers comics, particularly New Avengers and Civil War. I have never shared the enthusiasm for Spider-Man 2, though I liked Spider-man well enough. Having seen your video, for which many thanks, I think it must have been residual memories of the early comics that stopped me loving it as so many did. I love the Tom Holland Spider-man, and do see much of the original themes in those early comics reflected there, but I think that in the context of the MCU, it would always be easier go with the spirit of the comics and not the details. Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was, superficially, a transfer of the comics to the screen. Instead, it has become the default, because fewer people have read the early comics and fewer still have bothered to think about them. So I'm thanking you for putting the work and the thought into this subject that I haven't. I'm sure you're right.

This a great video. It’s surprisingly rare to find old school Comic Book Spider-Man get analyzed

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.

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 think the stan story is definitely a better message for a hero, but as someone who has their kindness taken advantage of them Spider-Man 2 has a much deeper meaning. The movie is a reminder that you gotta have a balance of looking after yourself and other people, because if you slave yourself for others trying to people please youll be miserable. But if you abandon everyone, youre no better than the people that take advantage of you and you dont put any positivity into the world. That results in other good people being hurt or taken advantage of. Spider-Man 2 represents the balance between self help & the responsibility to help others. And when you need a second to catch your breath and do something for yourself, the good people youve helped that value your help will be there to pick you up and put you on your feet

I don't see Raimi changing the story like this as a bad thing, it should be different as the original story already exists