AV Club: No comic-book movie captures the tone of its source material better than Spider-Man

[Mister Mets]

Interesting commentary from the AV Club on the 2002 Spider-Man.

When Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man hit theaters in May of 2002, movies based on comic books weren’t the dominating cultural force that they’ve since become. Batman had been dormant in live-action, big-screen form since 1997’s disastrously campy Batman & Robin. Superman hadn’t flown into multiplexes since the ’80s. Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk, Ghost Rider, Captain America: all in the future. Only the X-Men franchise was active back then, and there was no particular reason to think that it would go on to inspire multiple prequels and Wolverine spinoffs. Spider-Man became the first movie to gross $100 million during its opening weekend, and its success surely led to the glut of superhero movies we’re now experiencing, but it didn’t feel inevitable at the moment it appeared. It felt anomalous.

Looking back at Spider-Man now, people tend to cackle at its cheesy digital effects, which were none too impressive at the time and look almost antediluvian today, like something that escaped from a defunct video-game system. (The webslinging was much improved in Spider-Man 2, which is one reason why that film is remembered more fondly.) Thing is, though, nobody really cared about the action sequences, even at the time. What Spider-Man offered, more than any comic-book movie before or since, was a close approximation of its source material’s unique tone. Raimi and screenwriter David Koepp aren’t afraid to be earnest, even corny; the film is technically set in the present (“and Macy Gray as herself”), but its sensibility seems entirely formed by the values of the ’50s and early ’60s.

[The Rhino]

I agree fully. In the past few days I've watched the trilogy again and the movies are great. I even enjoyed the third film more than I remember. Its really not all that bad!

[jackolover]

Yeah, the first Spider-man movie Peter Parker was true to form, but the relaunch Peter Parker was too self confident. Parker, I felt, was always the victim, and a little too freaked to be this super powerful entity. He really had to grow into the part, not fall fully formed onto the screen. We're talking about a back street kid in Queens, who gets dumped on his whole school life. There is nothing in Queens. No future, just bleakness, in the days Parker was growing up. What chance has a kid coming out of a neighbourhood like that, in those days? No wonder he just became a glorified paper boy. (Just to clarify, Today, Queens has much more prospects and energy to look forward too. My God I visited Queens just because a fictional character had come from there, and that I had admired my whole life. This is the legacy that places can get from people like Lee and Ditko).

[THE DANGER965]

absolutely true. The first Spider-man film didn't just capture the comics, but also the heart and soul of the character. I don't think that you can get more faithful then that.

"This is my gift, my curse. Who am I? Am spider-man."

[Spidey616]

I'll always prefer the Raimi Spider-Man movies over the most recent ones.

[Pizzaman]

Raimi Spidey wasn't that close to comic Spidey at all.

[emac1790]

Raimi Spidey wasn't that close to comic Spidey at all.

I though it was. The only thing missing was the jokes. YMMV

[Cameron Samurai]

Raimi Spidey does not hold up well. At all.

[jackolover]

Raimi Spidey does not hold up well. At all.

You can say it, but the movie contradicts you. Where is your argument?

[Scott Taylor]

Everything about Spider-Man was so cool when it came out. Another thing to remember is that it was shortly after 9/11, and was a positive shot in the arm for many in mourning over that event. A positive hero like Spidey, making his screen debut in such a real, authentic way really struck a cord with people.

[supersqueak]

The original trilogy was great. I watched the original Spiderman film a while ago back to back with The amazing Spiderman and even with modern special effects Sam Raimi's is way better. I just don't care for the new films the old ones had much more heart and I would love to see them revisited in some capacity.

[MASTER-OF-SUPRISE]

The original Spider-Man film might be my favorite out of all of the original trilogy.

[Johnny Thunders!]

The bar was set by Raimi Spiderman, and the only weak link is MJ.

[Cryptid]

Raimi Spidey wasn't that close to comic Spidey at all.

That depends on which era of the comic you have in mind. Any character who has been in print for over fifty years will exist in many versions, and every attempt at a "return to form" will conceal an element of accidental revisionism. The Raimi movies are relatively close to the original Lee/Ditko issues, before Marvel remade Peter as a more strapping character, physically different from the wire-frame geek drawn by Ditko. The transition from doughy Toby Maguire to the menschier and scrappier Andrew Garfield echoes what happened after Ditko handed off the book.

[Cryptid]

Raimi Spidey does not hold up well. At all.

The second one holds up just fine. The sympathetic characterization of Dr. Octopus and the well-drawn supporting characters give the sense that the movie's New York has a life beyond the demands of Peter Parker's character development. Many of the more recent superhero movies, including ASM, have the problem that they make only glancing contact with the world beyond the plot. Avengers makes no attempt to pretend that New York is anything but a collection of toy blocks to be knocked over.