Spider-Man 2 (2004) Comic Influences

[Silver Nemesis]

Back in 2017 we had a comic-to-screen analysis of Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man (2002) movie to coincide with the film's 15th anniversary, as well as the release of Spider-Man: Homecoming: https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3590.0

Summer 2019 marks the release of Spider-Man: Far From Home and also happens to be the 15th anniversary of Raimi's Spider-Man 2 (2004), so now seems like as good a time as any to go back and take a look at that movie and the comics that might have influenced it.

As with the previous Raimi Spider-Man film, much of the inspiration came from the original Silver Age stories of the sixties and the Ultimate Spider-Man line that was popular at the time of the movie's production. Raimi specifically cited 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #12, May 1964) and the 'Spider-Man No More!' storyline from Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #50 (July 1967) as major influences:

"I was thinking about a great issue of Stan Lee's Spider-Man comic book where he gets the flu. And he, for a time, is really weak. It was so human to me, I thought it was great. [...] I thought that was a unique thing that happened in Stan Lee's comics. But also there was another issue of Stan Lee's comics that I loved where he decided to throw the suit away. It was issue number 50, perhaps, his life problems had just become too great, so I think what happened was there was a synthesis of those two ideas, along with other elements I was interested in telling in this story. That's where the genesis of the loss of powers came from."

https://www.superherohype.com/features/86019-interview-director-sam-raimi-on-spider-man-2

My Spider-Man 2 DVD set includes a reprint of 'Spider-Man No More!' This tie-in comic also contains cover art for several other stories that might have influenced the movie. I'll highlight some of these issues later in this analysis.

The movie's portrayal of Doctor Octopus is also indebted to the character's debut storyline in Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #14-21 (December 2001-June 2002).

Many viewers have pointed out similarities between Spider-Man 2 and the Richard Donner/Richard Lester movie Superman II (1980), but Raimi himself – while acknowledging his love of that film – has downplayed its influence:

"I would say, though, that I was influenced by the Stan Lee comic books. All the ideas came out of those Stan Lee comic books, and the artists that drew them, from Romita to Steve Ditko. That's where all the ideas for the Spider-Man films came from. As much as I love the Superman films, they weren't really the source material."

https://www.cbr.com/guest-spot-rohan-williams-interviews-sam-raimi-and-rob-tapert-part-1/

The film begins with one of the best opening title sequences of any superhero movie. Comic artist Alex Ross provided the paintings that recap the events of the previous film, similar to how the opening titles of Richard Lester's Superman II recapped the events of Superman: The Movie (1978).

The first time we see Peter Parker he is riding a moped similar to the scooter he rode in the Silver Age comics. The following panel is from 'The Tentacles and the Trap!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #54, November 1967).

Early in the film Peter tries selling some pictures to J. Jonah Jameson, only for the editor to dismiss all of his photographs that aren't directly related to Spider-Man. Jameson has shown similar contempt towards Peter's work in the comics, as seen in this panel from 'Man on a Rampage!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #32, January 1966).

Peter is fired by Jameson, then immediately rehired when the editor discovers he has fresh photos of Spider-Man. This exchange was likely inspired by a similar scene from 'In the Clutches of the Kingpin!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #51, August 1967), which was the issue that followed immediately after 'Spider-Man No More!'

One of Peter's teachers at university is Doctor Curt Connors, played by Dylan Baker. Connors was mentioned in the previous movie, but this marks the first time he appears on screen. He debuted in the comics in 'Face-to-Face with... the Lizard!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #6, November 1963). As in the comics, the movie version is shown to have only one arm.

Peter's character arc in the film sees him struggling to balance the different aspects of his life. His crime fighting activities are thriving at the expense of his social, work and academic responsibilities. This reflects the storyline of 'Spider-Man No More!'

Connors informs Peter that his grades are suffering as a result of his tardiness. His teacher told him the same thing in 'Spider-Man No More!'

Peter's social life is also in trouble. Harry Osborn believes Spider-Man murdered his father, and this creates a widening rift between him and Peter, just as it did in the comics. The following scene is from 'The Dark Wings of Death!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #127, December 1973).

Peter also learns that Aunt May is struggling financially in the wake of Uncle Ben's death, and this too happened in the comics. The following panel is from 'Spider-Man' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #1, March 1963).

To make matters worse, Peter discovers he is losing his powers. This has happened to him numerous times over the years. The earliest example was in the 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' story that Raimi cited as an influence on the film. In that issue, Peter was suffering from an illness that sapped him of his strength and made it harder for him to cling to walls. The untimely onset of these symptoms coincided with the return of Doc Ock, just as his loss of power does in the movie. More on this story later.

Peter's landlord, Mr. Ditkovitch, was named in honour of Spider-Man's co-creator Steve Ditko.

The main villain in the movie is Otto Octavius, aka Doctor Octopus, who debuted in the comics back in 'Spider-Man Versus Doctor Octopus' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #3, July 1963). English actor Alfred Molina plays him in the film. His costume in the movie, consisting of sunglasses and a brown trench coat, reflects one of the outfits he wore in the Ultimate Spider-Man series.

In the original Earth-616 timeline Peter didn't first encounter Octavius until after the latter had already become Doctor Octopus. However in the Ultimate Spider-Man timeline they had already met prior to Otto becoming a villain, which is also what happens in the movie. In both stories Peter is introduced to Otto by Harry Osborn. The following panel is from 'Growing Pains' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #2, December 2000)

In Marvel Year by Year: A Visual Chronicle, Marvel editor Tom DeFalco wrote:

"Dr. Octopus shared many traits with Peter Parker. They were both shy, both interested in science, and both had trouble relating to women... Otto Octavius even looked like a grown up Peter Parker. Lee and Ditko intended Otto to be the man Peter might have become if he hadn't been raised with a sense of responsibility."

The movie versions of Peter and Otto strike up a rapport that reflects Lee and Ditko's original concept for the character of Doc Ock. At the end of the film, it is their ability to relate to one another that allows Peter to reason with Octavius by appealing to his sense of intellectual responsibility.

The cinematic version of Otto has a wife named Rosie, played by Donna Murphy, whose tragic death is a major factor in his turn towards criminality. Rosie was created for the film, though she is somewhat similar to another character named Mary Alice Anders who first appeared in 'An Obituary for an Octopus' (Spider-Man Unlimited Vol 1 #3, November 1993). Mary was a scientist who became romantically involved with Otto before he became Doc Ock. Otto's mother sabotaged the relationship, which left her son deeply embittered and helped set him on the path to villainy.

The extended cut of the movie features a scene where Peter sketches an image of his own face with half of it covered by the Spider-Man mask. This image has been used countless times in the comics, often to indicate Peter's spidey sense, as seen in this example from 'The Uncanny Threat of the Terrible Tinkerer!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #2, May 1963).

The scene where Mary Jane refuses to pick up the phone when Peter calls, and he imagines telling her that he's Spider-Man, is similar to a scene from 'The Sinister Secret of Spider-Man's New Costume!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #258, November 1984). This issue was part of the 'Alien Costume Saga', which Raimi went on to adapt in Spider-Man 3.

In the movie Octavius creates his mechanical arms to aid in his experiments, just like he did in the comics.

This isn't a comic reference, but one of the Oscorp executives at Octavius's demonstration is played by Peter McRobbie, who would later portray Father Paul Lantom in the Daredevil TV show on Netflix.

Something goes wrong during one of Otto's experiments and he is badly wounded.

In the movie the accident occurrs during an experiment funded by Oscorp, which reflects Doc Ock's origin story in the Ultimate Spider-Man canon. Only in the Ultimate Spider-Man comics he was fused to his arms during the same lab explosion that turned Norman Osborn into the Green Goblin, while in the film the accident occurs during an unrelated experiment. But Oscorp is involved in the accident in both versions of the story.

The scene where Otto awakens in hospital and massacres the surrounding medical staff is taken from 'Doctor Octopus' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #14, December 2001). In both stories he wakes to find himself lying in a hospital bed with his eyes bandaged, initially unaware that he has been fused to his metal arms.

In the comic he had been in a coma for several months before awakening, while in the movie he wakes not long after being admitted. In both stories his metal arms slaughter the surrounding medical personnel with ruthless efficiency.

The image of Otto roaming the city barefoot and shirtless is evocative of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics.

After leaving the hospital he steps into a road and is almost hit by a car. Fortunately his new arms grant him the strength to lift the vehicle into the air. The following panel is from 'Live' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #20, June 2002).

Octavius makes his way to the waterfront where he establishes his new hideout in a dilapidated warehouse. Doc Ock has had several similar hideouts in the comics, including the following example from 'Enter: Doctor Octopus' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #53, October 1967). The cover of this issue is included in the Spider-Man 2 DVD comic, making it likely it was a deliberate reference.

Following Octavius's escape, Hoffman and Jameson discuss what they should call him. Before settling on the name 'Doctor Octopus', Hoffman suggests 'Doctor Strange'. Obviously this is a nod to Marvel's Doctor Stephen Strange, who first appeared in 'Doctor Strange Master of Black Magic!' (Strange Tales Vol 1 #110, July 1963). Like Spider-Man, Doctor Strange was created by the team of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.

Jameson then instructs Peter to cover a party being held at a planetarium. Peter asks if he can be paid in advance, but Jameson bluntly refuses. The same thing happened when Peter asked Jameson for an advance in 'Nothing Can Stop... the Sandman!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #4, September 1963), which is a story Raimi referenced heavily in Spider-Man 3 (2007).

[Silver Nemesis]

Peter has his first proper battle against Doctor Octopus while he is accompanying Aunt May to the bank. The first time they fight, Octavius incapacitates Spider-Man by grabbing his arms with his tentacles. Doc Ock also restrained Peter in this way during their very first fight in the comics, back in Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #3.

Here's another example of Doctor Octopus restraining Spider-Man in a similar manner, this time from 'The Cycle' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #18, April 2002).

Throughout their cinematic battles, Doc Ock is repeatedly shown to endanger the lives of civilians as a way of distracting Spider-Man. He does this almost every time they fight in the comics too.

Doc Ock carries off Aunt May as a hostage. Otto and May have a complicated history in the comics and Doc Ock even tried to marry her in Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #130-131 (March-April 1974), but only so he could bump her off and claim ownership of a uranium mine she'd inherited.

Spider-Man and Doc Ock proceed to fight on the side of a building, as they've done many times in the comics. The following scene is from 'The Final Battle' (Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man Vol 1 #79, June 1983), which contains arguably one of the best ever showdowns between Spidey and Doc Ock. I believe this issue also influenced the train fight later in the movie, but I'll get to that later.

Spider-Man co-creator Stan Lee makes a cameo during this scene.

Later Peter has to cover the party at the planetarium. There his spirits hit a new low when he learns that Mary Jane has become engaged to John Jameson. John, played in the film by Daniel Gillies, is an astronaut and the son of J. Jonah Jameson. He first appeared in the comics in the aforementioned Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #1. As far as I'm aware he was never romantically linked to Mary Jane in the comics, but I'm open to correction on that point. Instead the comic book version of John Jameson became engaged to a woman named Kristine Saunders, and this occurred around the same time that Harry Osborn was seeking revenge against Spider-Man for his father's death. The following scene is from 'The Mark of the Man-Wolf' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #124, September 1973).

Peter's relationship with Harry deteriorates during the party.

Harry appears to develop a drinking problem over the course of the film, while in the comics he developed a drug problem.

Following the party, Peter finds his powers have weakened even further and he can no longer cling to walls as well as he used to. The following panel is from 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!'

He also grows increasingly frustrated with Jameson's campaign to turn the people of the city against him. The following panel is from 'Spider-Man No More!'

Peter directly references the name of this story during his vision of Uncle Ben:

"No, Uncle Ben. I'm just Peter Parker. I'm Spider-Man no more."

Following this vision, he decides to give up being Spider-Man and discards his costume in a rubbish bin. The image of his costume hanging out of the bin as Peter walks away in the background is a direct panel recreation from 'Spider-Man No More!'

Soon after, the costume is found and brought to Jameson's office at The Daily Bugle. In the movie it's brought in by a rubbish collector, while in the comic it's found by a small boy. Betty Brant is present for this scene in both versions of the story.

Jameson is delighted to have won his war against Spider-Man.

We then see newspapers announcing Spider-Man's retirement. In the movie these bear the headline 'SPIDER-MAN NO MORE'.

Jameson displays the costume on his office wall as a trophy.

Elsewhere Peter is enjoying his newfound freedom from responsibility. The plotline about Spider-Man retiring from his crime fighting career to enjoy a normal life, and in particular so he can be with the woman he loves, is strongly reminiscent of Superman II.

At one point he hears someone crying for help as they are being attacked by a pair of criminals. In the comic Peter helps the victim, but in the film he walks away and leaves him to his fate.

Although Peter doesn't help this victim in the movie, he does later save a child from a burning building. In both stories his sense of responsibility compels him to continue helping people, even though he is officially retired.

As a result of Spidey's retirement, the crime rate in New York skyrockets.

The following comparison is with a panel from 'Turning Point' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #11, April 1964).

One of the images of Spider-Man that Harry is looking at when Doc Ock visits his penthouse is a recreation of the cover art for Amazing Fantasy Vol 1 #15 (August 1962). Painted by Alex Ross, this image featured as the cover of Hero Illustrated #6 (December 1993) and was included in the Marvels (1994) trade paperback.

Peter's coffee date with Mary Jane is similar to a scene from 'The House of Luthor', the first season finale of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993-97). In both stories the hero (Clark/Peter) had previously professed his love towards the female lead (Lois/Mary Jane) in an attempt to dissuade her from marrying someone else (Lex/John). The leading lady initially rejects him, breaking his heart, but later comes to realise that he is the man she really wants to be with. She then tries telling the hero this, but he interrupts her before she gets the chance and lies to her, saying that he doesn't really love her when in reality he does. Obviously this isn't a comic reference, but the scenes were so similar I thought it was worth mentioning.

The scene where Doc Ock kidnaps Mary Jane was inspired by the aforementioned 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' storyline from Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #12. In that issue Octavius kidnapped Betty Brant while Peter looked on helplessly. Note that this issue predated M.J.'s debut in the comics, and Betty was Peter's love interest at the time.

Peter cannot defend Betty without revealing that he is Spider-Man, and so has to feign helplessness.

Doc Ock tells Peter to get a message to Spider-Man, challenging him to meet him in combat if he wants to save Betty/Mary Jane.

By this point Peter has decided to resume his life as Spider-Man and so goes to Jameson's office to steal back his costume. He did the same thing in 'Spider-Man No More!'

Jameson is dismayed to learn of the web slinger's return.

Spider-Man then races to rescue Mary Jane from Doc Ock, just like he raced to rescue Betty in 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' The shot of Spider-Man reflected in Doc Ock's glasses as he swings towards their second battle is likely a reference to the cover of 'Doc Ock Wins!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #55, December 1967), which was one of the covers reprinted in the Spider-Man 2 DVD comic.

The DVD tie-in comic also includes the cover of 'The Commuter Cometh!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #267, August 1985), which might have been a visual influence on the train fight.

The following panel is from 'The Molten Man Breaks Out!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #133, June 1974). The cover of this story depicts Spider-Man fighting Molten Man atop a speeding train (which doesn't actually happen in the story), similar to the Doc Ock fight in the movie.

The inspiration for the train fight was likely the aforementioned Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man #79, which features a scene where Spider-Man and Doc Ock fight on a railway track. The moment in the extended cut of the film where Doc Ock holds Spider-Man in front of an oncoming train is adapted directly from this story.

The train fight also has parallels with the previously mentioned sequence in 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' where Spider-Man goes to save Betty from Octavius. In both stories, their fight ends with Spider-Man losing to Octavius and being unmasked. Raimi confirmed this issue was a major influence on the film, so these similarities are almost certainly deliberate.

Octavius delivers the unconscious Spider-Man to Harry, who finally learns that Peter is the man he blames for his father's death. Harry discovered Peter was Spider-Man in the comics in 'Danger is a Man Named... Tarantula' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #134, July 1974) after he saw him stocking up on web fluid in their apartment.

The movie's finale sees Spider-Man fighting Doc Ock in a warehouse on the Manhattan waterfront where Octavius has constructed a new fusion device. There's a somewhat similar scene in the Ultimate Spider-Man series where the two of them fight in a nuclear power plant on the Manhattan waterfront.

Spider-Man is able to subdue Octavius using his fists, as he did at the end of Doc Ock's debut story in Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #3.

Doc Ock is ultimately defeated when one of his tentacles penetrates a power cable linked to the machinery in his hideout. The same thing happened when Doc Ock fought Daredevil in Frank Miller's 'Arms of the Octopus' (Daredevil Vol 1 #165, July 1980).

Spider-Man cuts off the power supply before Octavius is fried, just as Daredevil did in the comics.

The last time we see Doc Ock in the movie he is sinking along with his fusion device. This recalls the ending of 'And Men Shall Call Him... Octopus!' (Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man Annual Vol 1 #1, December 1979), where Octavius is last seen being dragged down to a watery grave after one of his tentacles gets trapped in the hatch of a sinking submarine. Coincidentally, this was Doc Ock's last appearance prior to Daredevil Vol 1 #165, and Miller's comic includes a flashback to the scene of Octavius drowning.

The final shot of Doc Ock sinking also recalls the image of the explosion that first fused Octavius to his arms in the comics. The panel below is from a retelling of that scene in Spider-Man Unlimited Vol 1 #3.

It's during the showdown that Mary Jane finally realises Peter is Spider-Man. In the comics she figured this out on her own, as revealed in 'Beware the Claws of Puma!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #257, October 1984).

Elsewhere Harry discovers his father's secret base hidden in their penthouse and realises that Norman was the Green Goblin all along. In the comics Harry learned of his father's double life on the night he died. He found Norman's secret hideout in 'Shoot-Out in Central Park!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #135, August 1974) and decided to adopt the mantle of the Green Goblin so he could avenge his father. He embarks on the same quest for vengeance in the movie.

This comic ended on a cliffhanger with Harry about to don his Green Goblin costume in the following issue. The film ends on a similar cliffhanger, and fans would have to wait until Spider-Man 3 to see Harry become the Green Goblin.

The movie ends with Peter and Mary Jane finally getting together. M.J. references her pet name for Peter in the comics when she says, "Go get 'em, tiger."

And that's all I've got for Spider-Man 2. Is there anything I've missed?

[The Joker]

Excellent work, SN! As always, you have a keen eye on the comics detail.



Sam Raimi's clear affection for the Lee/Ditko/Romita era is well documented, and it's a safe bet the films influences were not purely coincidental.

For me, in terms of Spider-Man movies, Spider-Man 2 remains the GOAT.

Given the more recent cinematic incarnations, it's not even close.

I would absolutely love for this film to get a theatrical re-release. Or even a Trilogy screening. I attended one for Nolan's trilogy in 2012, and would gladly do the same for Raimi's Spider-Man.

[Silver Nemesis]

Agreed on all counts, Joker. I'm glad I'm not the only person who rates Raimi's movies above the newer ones. I've been re-watching all the Spider-Man films in the run-up to Far From Home's release, and SM2 is definitely still the best. For me, it's tied with Superman: The Movie as the greatest superhero film ever made, as well as the most charming. The whole trilogy is awesome, and even Spider-Man 3 is much better than people give it credit for. Granted, it does fall apart during the final act. But the first two thirds of the film are mostly on a par with Spider-Man 1. It also contains some of the funniest moments in the entire series.

But Spider-Man 2 – that's damn near perfect. The fusion of humour and drama is beautifully balanced, the action scenes are thrilling (the train fight has yet to be surpassed), the score is memorable (even though Elfman did rip off Claude Debussy's 'Clair de lune' and Christopher Young's Hellraiser theme), the performances are heartfelt, and the cinematography, editing and direction are all top notch. Almost every shot in the film looks like an Alex Ross painting, and the subtext about responsibility superseding personal ambition really gets to the heart of what the Peter Parker character is all about. Hopefully this thread has also illustrated just how faithful the film is to the source material.

This music video alone gets a stronger emotional reaction out of me than the entirety of Spider-Man: Homecoming, and that's a testament to the 2004 film's enduring power:

As for the more recent movies – I finally picked up the DVD of Into the Spider-Verse and watched it the other night. I thought it was good, and a lot better than Homecoming, but I didn't have the strong emotional reaction to it that most people seem to have had. The praise it's received isn't quite as hyperbolic as the adoration heaped upon Black Panther, but it's not that far off. However I did enjoy it and it made me laugh in a few places. It's probably the best Spider-Man film outside of the Raimi trilogy.

I also watched Homecoming on DVD last night. It's the first time I've watched it since seeing it on the big screen in 2017, and my opinion is the same now as it was then. It's a 6.5/10 at best. Objectively it probably is a better film than Webb's two, but Webb's take, while inferior to Raimi's, is still closer to what I think a Spider-Man story should be. Homecoming is not the worst Spider-Man film, but I think it is my least favourite. Hopefully Far From Home will be better.

Nowadays the prevalent attitude seems to be that Peter must be portrayed as a high school student/teenager at all times. I grew up reading the nineties Spider-Man comics and watching the Nicholas Hammond show and 1994 animated series, and Peter didn't look like a kid in any of those things. So it never bothered me that Maguire looked older either.

The 616 Peter graduated from high school in 1965 and was allowed to grow up. Why shouldn't the cinematic version mature as well? I don't know, maybe I just have a very outdated view of what I think Spider-Man should be.

Anyway, happy anniversary to Spider-Man 2. I saw it several times on the big screen when it first came out, and I'd go see it again if they re-released it.

And happy anniversary to the videogame as well. With all due respect to the Arkham series, the Spider-Man 2 tie-in is still my favourite superhero game. I'll have to dust off my copy and play through it again sometime this summer.

[thecolorsblend]

I don't regard any of the origins we've seen so far as definitive. In a lot of cases, they're not even all that great.

Raimi's origin probably comes the closest to representing Amazing Fantasy #15. He still misses the mark though. The wrestling promoter screwed Peter over by not paying him what had been promised so Peter screwed him over right back by not stopping the burglar. In AF #15, Peter's actions were completely uncalled for. He was a jerk for absolutely no reason. But in the first Raimi film... yeah, he was still slightly out of line but his point of view was pretty understandable.

That arguably changes the moral Peter should've learned from "With great power there must also come great responsibility" to "Don't seek revenge against those who have wronged you". And that's an interesting moral lesson for a character to learn. But let's face it, that's not Spider-Man's defining philosophy. The great power/great responsibility bit IS.

Raimi had a near miss with Peter's AF #15 moral. Webb completely missed it and the MCU version, afaik, hasn't even touched on the subject. So hmm.

The other two Raimi films are great, I agree. I'll even say that Spider-Man 3 gets a bad rap unfairly. Yes, it's yet another movie where the villain once again kidnaps MJ in order to lure Spider-Man out into the open. But I can overlook that stuff since each MJ kidnapping arguably has different motivations, different ramifications and different lessons learned for each other the characters.

But at the end of the day, each movie basically ends the same way and there's just no getting around that.

[The Joker]

Agreed on all counts, Joker. I'm glad I'm not the only person who rates Raimi's movies above the newer ones. I've been re-watching all the Spider-Man films in the run-up to Far From Home's release, and SM2 is definitely still the best. For me, it's tied with Superman: The Movie as the greatest superhero film ever made, as well as the most charming. The whole trilogy is awesome, and even Spider-Man 3 is much better than people give it credit for. Granted, it does fall apart during the final act. But the first two thirds of the film are mostly on a par with Spider-Man 1. It also contains some of the funniest moments in the entire series.

That's high praise, SN, and you're exactly on the mark. Raimi's trilogy is highly rewatchable! SM1 was a absolute phenom of a movie in 2002, even performing better than Star Wars ... STAR WARS! SM2 was released a few years later, and widely considered the sequel that topped the much loved original. I give SM3 a hard time, due to a noticeable quality drop off, no thanks in large part to interference that has become well documented all over the internet, but thru it all, there still remains a charm to it. Which speaks volumes of Raimi's abilities as a filmmaker, the people that worked on the film, and last but not least, the cast itself.

With Spider-Verse, I still have yet to see it, but continue to hear/read good reviews about it. Including your comments. It's something I intend on checking out at some point this year. I kinda became disillusioned with Spider-Man's future cinematic efforts following Homecoming, but Sony's Venom was atleast entertaining (although that take that would have necessitated a hard R rating they were originally hyping would have been preferred), and Sony's Into the Spider-Verse was well received as well from what I've been gathering.

Nowadays the prevalent attitude seems to be that Peter must be portrayed as a high school student/teenager at all times. I grew up reading the nineties Spider-Man comics and watching the Nicholas Hammond show and 1994 animated series, and Peter didn't look like a kid in any of those things. So it never bothered me that Maguire looked older either.

The 616 Peter graduated from high school in 1965 and was allowed to grow up. Why shouldn't the cinematic version mature as well? I don't know, maybe I just have a very outdated view of what I think Spider-Man should be.

You know, come to think of it, I don't believe Spider-Man/Peter Parker was ever emphasized as a high school student in any animated series based on him, until I suppose, Spectacular Spider-Man. This goes for the '60's series, the 1981 series, the "Amazing Friends" series, or the aforementioned 1990's series. Peter's high school existence was definitely a theme and backdrop in the early Lee/Ditko issues, hell the first page gives us that indication, but evidently Stan did not feel that Peter's high school years was something that was absolutely vital to his continued success and had to be maintained. As back then, Peter Parker was ageing right along with the readers. Each year that passed for the readers, passed for Spider-Man as well. He was literally ageing with the readership that followed his adventures. Of course, this aspect wasn't going to last very long, but it's interesting that Disney appears more enamored with this particular period than most.

Anyway, happy anniversary to Spider-Man 2. I saw it several times on the big screen when it first came out, and I'd go see it again if they re-released it.

And happy anniversary to the videogame as well. With all due respect to the Arkham series, the Spider-Man 2 tie-in is still my favourite superhero game. I'll have to dust off my copy and play through it again sometime this summer.

Oh yeah! Alot of good memories playing SM2 on the old PS2.

Speaking of Mysterio ... those SM2 Mysterio levels were something else. I had many a swearing session trying to complete those levels, and these memories are pretty vivid. Amazing game for sure.

[Kamdan]

At one point he hears someone crying for help as they are being attacked by a pair of criminals. In the comic Peter helps the victim, but in the film he walks away and leaves him to his fate.

This change right here makes this the worst Rami Spider-Man movie. They badly botched the original Spider-Man No More storyline by not caring about how satisfying it is for Peter to be a hero for someone who needs one other than Mary Jane Watson. These films made Mary Jane Watson someone not worth saving, however she isn't with her attitude and truly devious nature of getting engaged to someone she doesn't truly care about. She's the true villain of the trilogy.

[Silver Nemesis]

Raimi's origin probably comes the closest to representing Amazing Fantasy #15. He still misses the mark though. The wrestling promoter screwed Peter over by not paying him what had been promised so Peter screwed him over right back by not stopping the burglar. In AF #15, Peter's actions were completely uncalled for. He was a jerk for absolutely no reason. But in the first Raimi film... yeah, he was still slightly out of line but his point of view was pretty understandable.

That arguably changes the moral Peter should've learned from "With great power there must also come great responsibility" to "Don't seek revenge against those who have wronged you". And that's an interesting moral lesson for a character to learn. But let's face it, that's not Spider-Man's defining philosophy. The great power/great responsibility bit IS.

It's true that Peter's emotional reason for not stopping the robber is different in the film, but I'd argue the underlying moral message about responsibility is still the same. Both the 2002 movie and Amazing Fantasy #15 present the idea that it's not only wrong to misuse power, but that it's equally wrong to not use it when doing so would help others. This message is repeated by Octavius in the second movie when he speaks of intelligence: "Intelligence is not a privilege, it's a gift. And you use it for the good of mankind." The same principle applies to power. In the first movie, Peter chooses not to exercise his power – and by extension, not to exercise responsibility – for selfish emotional reasons. In doing so, he allows a gun-toting criminal to go free without regard for the other people he might hurt. And the consequences of this irresponsible act are visited back on him in tragic proportion. In the comics his inaction was motivated by hubris, while in the movie it was motivated by spite and a desire for revenge. But in both stories we see Peter's selfish emotional drives overriding his sense of moral obligation. While the emotional context is indeed different, I'd say the moral problem – of refusing to help someone in need for personal reasons – remains the same.

At the risk of invoking the wrath of Lee/Ditko fans, I'd go further and make the argument that the movie version is actually superior to the sequence of events depicted in Amazing Fantasy #15, for two main reasons. Firstly, the film circumvents the improbable notion that the same robber from the studio would also break into Uncle Ben's house shortly afterwards. There are over a million buildings in New York City, and this guy just happens to break into the one house belonging to Spider-Man's uncle? I know it's a fantasy story and we shouldn't think too hard about these things, but it's still a massive stretch. The movie version is more plausible, as (A) it gives Ben a reason to be in proximity to the robbery at the time it occurs, and (B) it gives the robber a reason for specifically targeting Ben (a parked vehicle, unlocked, occupied by an elderly man who is unlikely to offer much resistance). This makes it even worse that Peter let an armed criminal go free, since he knew his own elderly uncle was waiting in the vicinity. And that brings me to the second reason why I think the movie version is better – it amplifies Peter's guilt.

The 616 Peter passively enabled Uncle Ben's death through his inaction, but he didn't actively help bring it about. But in the Raimi film, it was Peter's scheme to make money off his powers that put Uncle Ben in harm's way to begin with. If Peter hadn't lied to him, Ben wouldn't have been sat outside the library in the first place, he wouldn't have been carjacked, and he wouldn't have been shot. Peter lied to his uncle in the pursuit of cash, and that lie got Ben killed. If Peter hadn't been in the studio in Amazing Fantasy #15, the robber still would have ripped off the place, he still would have got away with the loot, and he still would have killed Ben at a later time. Peter's irresponsible actions didn't cause Ben's death in the 616 comics so much as enable it. But in the movie, Peter's selfishness directly facilitated the tragic event, which means his guilt is twofold: it was his fault Ben was in the line of fire in the first place, and he had a chance to stop him from being killed but chose not to for reasons that were entirely selfish and immature. Exacerbating this is the memory of the harsh words he exchanged with Ben during their final conversation; a conversation in which his uncle was trying to teach him the very lesson that might have averted this tragedy, had Peter only heeded what was being said.

They almost screwed it up in Spider-Man 3 by revealing it was Sandman who actually killed Ben. But the final flashback indicates that Marko only shot him because the other guy bumped into him, so I guess the onus of guilt is still on Pete. Perhaps if Peter had stopped the gunman, then Ben would have successfully talked Marko out of stealing his car and the plot of Spider-Man 3 could have been averted too. Which means Peter is also partly to blame for Marko becoming Sandman.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into all this. Anyway, this is just my take. I agree that Peter in Raimi's movie never became the jerk he was in AF#15 (though he came close when he had the black suit in SM3). But I believe the important moral growth that Peter undergoes in the comic is still reflected in the film.

The other two Raimi films are great, I agree. I'll even say that Spider-Man 3 gets a bad rap unfairly. Yes, it's yet another movie where the villain once again kidnaps MJ in order to lure Spider-Man out into the open. But I can overlook that stuff since each MJ kidnapping arguably has different motivations, different ramifications and different lessons learned for each other the characters.

M.J. getting kidnapped again is one of the issues I have with SM3's final act, but there are other larger problems as well. I think the film is fine up to and including the scene where Peter returns the engagement ring to Aunt May. Following this, there's a sequence of events that is so condensed it almost feels as if the DVD is skipping several chapters. In order for the finale to take place, Peter has to acquire the following pieces of important information:

•   Marko is still alive
•   The Symbiote is also still active
•   There's a new villain in the city called Venom
•   Sandman and Venom have teamed up
•   Mary Jane has been kidnapped... again
•   The villains have issued a public challenge to Spider-Man

And how does Peter come into possession of these facts? He sees them summarised for him in a news report as he's walking past a shop window. This is condensed storytelling at its laziest. The whole sequence where Venom teams up with Sandman is missing too many things. When Marko first becomes Sandman we're treated to a beautiful sequence where we see him adapt to his powers. There's no equivalent scene for Brock. We see the Symbiote envelop him, and then suddenly he's fully formed as Venom. We never see him learning to use his powers or adapting to the suit. We never see the connection established between Brock's mind and that of the Symbiote. And when Venom first encounters Sandman, the latter barely reacts to seeing an alien monster slobber in his face. He just turns his back on him and walks away. It all feels too rushed.

Then there's the equally awkward plot device of the Osborn butler revealing the truth about Norman's death to Harry. It hadn't even been established prior to this scene that the butler knew about Norman and Harry's double life. And if he did know, why did he wait until this point to tell Harry a truth that might have spared him so much pain? And his testimony doesn't actually exonerate Peter anyway. So Norman was killed with his own glider – how do Harry and his butler know that Spider-Man didn't use the glider to stab Norman? Again, it's all about repositioning the characters so they can rush to the finale. The film needed at least another 30-40 minutes to set up the final act. Or better yet, they could have split the movie in two.

The only other major problem I have with the rest of the film is that there are too many characters. Gwen Stacy and her father could easily have been cut. Both were underwritten and neither portrayal did justice to the source material (that's the fault of the writing, not the actors). Gwen serves two important functions in the plot: firstly to make M.J. jealous, and secondly to break up with Brock in order to increase his resentment towards Peter. Both of these functions could have been served by Betty Brant. They'd already established Brant as a character in the first two films, and both Brock and Peter are shown flirting with her in SM3. That would have streamlined things quite a bit.

But for every negative thing I could say about SM3, there are plenty of positives. I was very disappointed by it when it first came out. But now, after seeing what the subsequent Spider-Man films were like, I think Raimi's third movie has aged pretty well.

With Spider-Verse, I still have yet to see it, but continue to hear/read good reviews about it. Including your comments. It's something I intend on checking out at some point this year. I kinda became disillusioned with Spider-Man's future cinematic efforts following Homecoming, but Sony's Venom was atleast entertaining (although that take that would have necessitated a hard R rating they were originally hyping would have been preferred), and Sony's Into the Spider-Verse was well received as well from what I've been gathering.

Into the Spider-Verse is worth seeing, but make sure your expectations are in check. It's not the masterpiece the critics have made it out to be, any more than the recent MCU films are. But it's good. It puts a fresh spin on the material, it's nicely animated, and it contains lots of Easter egg allusions to older Spider-Man films, comics and TV shows. I don't think it's as good as Spider-Man 2, but I like it a lot more than Homecoming. And it gets bonus points for having Kingpin as the main villain.

I still haven't seen the Venom movie, but I'd like to. If you count Venom, we've now had seven Spider-Man related films in a little over three years:

1.   Captain America: Civil War (2016)
2.   Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
3.   Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
4.   Venom (2018)
5.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
6.   Avengers: Endgame (2019)
7.   Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)

Apparently Holland's MCU contract ends with his third solo film, but I've heard rumours he may appear in future Sony Spider-Man movies such as Venom 2 and the Into the Spider-Verse sequel. That could be interesting.

You know, come to think of it, I don't believe Spider-Man/Peter Parker was ever emphasized as a high school student in any animated series based on him, until I suppose, Spectacular Spider-Man. This goes for the '60's series, the 1981 series, the "Amazing Friends" series, or the aforementioned 1990's series. Peter's high school existence was definitely a theme and backdrop in the early Lee/Ditko issues, hell the first page gives us that indication, but evidently Stan did not feel that Peter's high school years was something that was absolutely vital to his continued success and had to be maintained. As back then, Peter Parker was ageing right along with the readers. Each year that passed for the readers, passed for Spider-Man as well. He was literally ageing with the readership that followed his adventures. Of course, this aspect wasn't going to last very long, but it's interesting that Disney appears more enamored with this particular period than most.

A lot of fans are insistent on the younger and more comedic characterisation these days. You mentioned the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, and I wonder if that's partly to blame. I saw an episode of that on a plane once, and I was surprised at just how far they went with the comedy. Especially compared to the nineties Spider-Man carton, which was far more dramatic. I suppose the popularity of Deadpool might also be a factor. Everyone seems to want Spider-Man to be a fourth-wall-breaking teenage chatterbox, but as you point out, that's not how he was depicted in most of the comics or animated shows prior to this decade. I like humour in my Spider-Man stories too, but I also like a little drama and darkness.

Oh yeah! Alot of good memories playing SM2 on the old PS2.

Speaking of Mysterio ... those SM2 Mysterio levels were something else. I had many a swearing session trying to complete those levels, and these memories are pretty vivid. Amazing game for sure.

The game's depiction of Mysterio was awesome. I particularly like the mission where you find his secret funhouse lair inside an apartment building (there's a scene in Far From Home that reference the bit in the game where Spider-Man's reflections emerge from the mirrors to attack him). And then there's this memorable scene.

Such a great game. I got a free comic when I bought my copy on the first day of release. And I remember seeing this advert in the cinema when I went to see the movie.

Storyboard artist Jeffrey Henderson confirmed the fan theory that Bruce Campbell's character was meant to be Mysterio back in 2016. There's nothing to indicate this in the existing trilogy, so I didn't think it was worth mentioning in these threads, but apparently the twist would have been revealed in Spider-Man 4.

This change right here makes this the worst Rami Spider-Man movie. They badly botched the original Spider-Man No More storyline by not caring about how satisfying it is for Peter to be a hero for someone who needs one other than Mary Jane Watson. These films made Mary Jane Watson someone worth saving, however she isn't with her attitude and truly devious nature of getting engaged to someone she doesn't truly care about. She's the true villain of the trilogy.

You've got a point about M.J., but I disagree about SM2 being a bad adaptation of 'Spider-Man No More!' In the movie Peter didn't resume being Spider-Man for Mary Jane's sake. Quite the opposite. He'd already decided to resume being Spider-Man before she was kidnapped by Doc Ock, and this was prompted by a combination of his experience saving the child from the burning building (which is the film's true equivalent of the scene in the comic where he rescues the man on the rooftop) and the talk Aunt May gave him about the need for self-sacrificing heroes. He then lied to M.J. about not loving her, because by that point he had chosen to prioritise his vocation as Spider-Man over the possibility of a life with the woman he loved. By the end of the movie Peter had faced up to his responsibilities as a hero and reconciled the different aspects of his life, which is what 'Spider-Man No More!' is all about.

And I'm pretty sure he was shown to derive satisfaction from helping people other than M.J. The very last scene shows him swinging off to assist the emergency services, yelling "Yahoo!" as he goes. It's pretty clear he's come to terms with his dual life by this point and is starting to enjoy being Spider-Man again.

As for letting the guy get mugged, that's no worse than the original comic where he allowed Kingpin to conduct a crime wave across the city without lifting a finger to help. In the film he was at least haunted by his decision, while in the comic he took a far more insouciant attitude towards the armed robberies that were occurring on his watch.

But I agree with you about M.J. getting engaged to John while stringing Peter along. Her actions at the end of the movie, where she jilts John at the altar, are also extremely selfish. But that's just her characterisation and doesn't make it a bad film for me.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, chaps.

[thecolorsblend]

At the risk of invoking the wrath of Lee/Ditko fans, I'd go further and make the argument that the movie version is actually superior to the sequence of events depicted in Amazing Fantasy #15, for two main reasons. Firstly, the film circumvents the improbable notion that the same robber from the studio would also break into Uncle Ben's house shortly afterwards. There are over a million buildings in New York City, and this guy just happens to break into the one house belonging to Spider-Man's uncle? I know it's a fantasy story and we shouldn't think too hard about these things, but it's still a massive stretch. The movie version is more plausible, as (A) it gives Ben a reason to be in proximity to the robbery at the time it occurs, and (B) it gives the robber a reason for specifically targeting Ben (a parked vehicle, unlocked, occupied by an elderly man who is unlikely to offer much resistance). This makes it even worse that Peter let an armed criminal go free, since he knew his own elderly uncle was waiting in the vicinity. And that brings me to the second reason why I think the movie version is better – it amplifies Peter's guilt.

The 616 Peter passively enabled Uncle Ben's death through his inaction, but he didn't actively help bring it about. But in the Raimi film, it was Peter's scheme to make money off his powers that put Uncle Ben in harm's way to begin with. If Peter hadn't lied to him, Ben wouldn't have been sat outside the library in the first place, he wouldn't have been carjacked, and he wouldn't have been shot. Peter lied to his uncle in the pursuit of cash, and that lie got Ben killed. If Peter hadn't been in the studio in Amazing Fantasy #15, the robber still would have ripped off the place, he still would have got away with the loot, and he still would have killed Ben at a later time. Peter's irresponsible actions didn't cause Ben's death in the 616 comics so much as enable it. But in the movie, Peter's selfishness directly facilitated the tragic event, which means his guilt is twofold: it was his fault Ben was in the line of fire in the first place, and he had a chance to stop him from being killed but chose not to for reasons that were entirely selfish and immature. Exacerbating this is the memory of the harsh words he exchanged with Ben during their final conversation; a conversation in which his uncle was trying to teach him the very lesson that might have averted this tragedy, had Peter only heeded what was being said.

I guess the randomness of Ben's murder is what works for me in AF #15. It is pretty long odds that Ben would get killed by the very same thief Peter allowed to escape. But for me, that's the entire point. He was always going to kill somebody. Peter was directly affected by his own inaction.

And while I understand your point about Peter's lie in SM1, the fact remains that in AF #15, Peter was a jerk for absolutely no reason whereas he was a jerk in the movie with some justification. In AF #15, Peter had a massive chip on his shoulder and his powers allowed him to act upon that. He wanted to take care of May and Ben in a negative sense and for all the wrong reasons. He was more selfish in SM1, and for no apparent reason. It's been forever since I've seen the movie but I don't remember Peter's school life being so terrible in SM1. Whereas he was rather a social pariah in AF #15.

Idk, I suppose there's room for disagreement here. But so far, I'm not satisfied with ANY of the Uncle Ben/origin stories in the films.

[Silver Nemesis]

I see what you're saying, colors, and that's a very fair point. The AF#15 Peter was embittered in a way that none of his cinematic counterparts have been. It would be interesting to explore that side of the character if they ever do another reboot. Though I suspect the next live action reboot will probably focus on Mile Morales instead of Peter.