Spider-Man(2002) does it hold up?

[chicago_bastard]

There are "pessimistic beats" and then there is the pointless death of a major character. Not quite the same thing.
Are there any comic book movies you have liked?

Of course there are. And some of them even happen to have important characters die. The Dark Knight even has a scene where Batman is put into a very similar scenario and Rachel dies, I don't remember people hating the movie for it.

Taken out of the Spider-Man mythos, ASM 122 is a good story. Within the Spider-Man story, though, its problematic in the same way as the Clone Saga.

How is it problematic?

[Agent Z]

Guess that's true for readers in the 1970s but later generations shouldn't get outraged over some pessimistic beats in their entertainment. And what was the point of Goblin putting him into the dilemma of either saving the children or MJ when Spidey then proceeds to save both without any problem. That whole setup was so pointless.

It's not pointless to have a hero save people.

[babyblob]

Spiderman is one of my favorite films. nd I loved Part 2 even more. Seeing Spiderman swing around New York on the big screen and in real life blew me away when I saw it. I remember my friends and I super hyped for this movie. And I thought Doc Ock was the coolest villain ever to be on screen.

So for me it holds up because I have great memories of it and I still watch them several times a year. And it was such a good movie they put that version of Sipderman and Doc Ock into the MCU movie and it was a huge hit.

[Minerboh]

What are this nonsense I read about outdated CGI in Spider-Man 2002?
Are we sincerely trying to compare it with Josstice League's glitched Cyborg, Age Of Ultron's puppet looking Heimdall or Love And Thunder's nightmarish floating head?
Give me a break!!!

[Doctor Know]

What are this nonsense I read about outdated CGI in Spider-Man 2002?
Are we sincerely trying to compare it with Josstice League's glitched Cyborg, Age Of Ultron's puppet looking Heimdall or Love And Thunder's nightmarish floating head?
Give me a break!!!

The dated CGI in SM1 people most often refer to is from Peter running on the rooftops at the beginning. It's dated, sure. But not outright bad. A digital touch up with today's tech could fix this.




I still laugh that Love and Thunder has two versions of the floating head skype call, and both are inexcusably bad.

[FFJamie94]

I watched it last year and yeah… it holds up pretty well. It captures the Ditko era perfectly, cheesy lines as well. It doesn’t seem to be poking fun at the comics, but rather laughing alongside with them. It’s camp fun with an actually somber edge. This movie was pretty dark for ny 8 year old mind back in the day. And that fight between Spidey and Goby at the end is one of my favourites put to film.
Willam is so good and threatening as the Green Goblin that they brought him back to be the best MCU villain 19 years later.
It’s honestly my second favourite live action Spider-Man film behind Mo Way Home.

Yeah the CGI is dated, but it’s used so carefully that it doesn’t become an issue.
The scene where Peter puts in his glasses and takes them off blew my mind as a kid. I legit remember thinking “how dud they do that? Wouldn’t the mirror have picked up the camera man”
Ah how little you know about editing as a lad.

[David Walton]

ASM #122 didn't conclude with a cop-out happy ending like this movie did so I'd hardly call it a perfect adaptation when such a seminal moment is cheapened.

Well, given that it would have been MJ dying in Gwen's place, I think it worked as well as it possibly could in the context of a two hour film.

I'm a huge fan of ASM 121-22 and its place in Spider-Man's history. But given the limitations Raimi was working with, like not having the luxury of knowing there would ever be a second film, he gave fans a satisfying emotional journey that compresses the Lee/Ditko, Lee/Romita and Conway/Andru era as wonderfully as you could possibly hope for.

[David Walton]

I think they fixed a moment every fan hated at the time, and still do to this day.

I don't know that many fans hate ASM 121-22; I think it's one of the most universally admired Spider-Man comic stories to this day.

[Scott Taylor]

How is it problematic?

It was a radical and controversial change, like OMD. And even though its a well-written story, and I love it, the story just kind of sits there in the middle of Spidey lore engendering many strange "workaround" stories from writers or editors who have wanted to use Norman or Gwen in their tales over the years.

Basically it exists but has a strange legacy in Spidey lore.

[godisawesome]

It's still my favorite overall Spider-Man movie, and I like or love most Spider-Man movies.

My one thing is that I'm not that big a fan the film's Peter or Spider-Man in comparison to others. Raimi has a bit too much of an obsession with "Loser Peter," which is still the stronger of the two personas; I'm less fond of Spider-Man 2 because I don't care about Loser Peter enough to justify him having a larger role in that film, and I think he's the weakness derailing Spider-Man 3. Spider-Man 1 hits the sweet spot for this Peter, since he's a loser for a bit, than just a less aggravatingly exaggerated nerd for the rest of the film. The Spider-Man, though, is weaker than both Garfield and Holland's version, because they won't let him quip more than a tiny bit.

DeFoe's Goblin is and always will be better than Molina's magnificent Doc Ock; that's not an accusation against Ock, it's simply stating the truth that Goblin was always more terrifying and mesmerizing.

[Kirby101]

I don't know that many fans hate ASM 121-22; I think it's one of the most universally admired Spider-Man comic stories to this day.

I don't know that many fans hate ASM 121-22; I think it's one of the most universally admired Spider-Man comic stories to this day.

At the time, it was. Time will change how people see things. I would think people reading back issues in chunks, and probably knowing Gwen will die don't see it the same way fans who liked the character at the time took her death.

[Catlady in training]

I never liked it, mostly because Tobey didn't seem like a good fit to me. I much preferred Andrew Garfield in the role.

[babyblob]

I never liked it, mostly because Tobey didn't seem like a good fit to me. I much preferred Andrew Garfield in the role.

I always felt that Toby made a good Peter Parker but not a great Spiderman. He didnt land the snark and joke side very well.

[KurtW95]

Yes. I think Garfield is the better Peter and Spidey, but these films are great. The supporting cast and villains are great and Maguire is still far better than Holland. Organic webshooters are my only gripe really. And the fact MJ is chosen over Gwen. Though the latter was great in the subsequent series, which wrongly wasted her in killing her off. But JK Simmons as Jameson. Dafoe as Osborn. The tone and the world. It worked.

[Captain Craig]

I re-watched Spider-man 1 & 2 a year ago or so and they both hold for me.
Like some others I feel 2 is still as strong a film as anything to come after it in the genre.