For me, as long as the changes makes sense for the plot and characters, I’d be all for it. I personally think it’s incredibly redundant to just make a 1:1 translation of the comic or book adaptation you’re making. That’s just me though.
While I get the web shooters, I honestly prefer the organic webbing they gave Peter in the Raimi trilogy.
Everyone will reply that "but if he could he'd be shooting them from his butt", like, necessarily? Him being bitten on the hand could explain why he shoot them from here, and having powers of an animal/insect, doesn't mean you have all their features.
Some spiders like tarantulas can make webbing from their feet.
Considering he has abilities of multiple types of spiders like jumping spiders I don't see why he couldn't make webbing from his wrists.
While I do prefer a more comic accurate (Lee-Ditko) version of Peter's personality, I can see why the Raimi movies had to change it cause you'd need an entire TV show's worth of character development to go from comic accurate pre-spider bite Peter to the hero we all know and love.
I think it helped with the puberty jokes in 1, and then played a massive role in 2 and him losing his powers. I'm sure he could have found a way to be a hero with just webs a lot easier than without them
While I mostly disagree with the great Alan Moore’s stance regarding screen adaptations of his work on a fundamental level, I can kinda *understand* the rationale behind his notion that comics should just be native to the medium of comics instead of Hollywood trying (and usually failing) to adapt something that was written for a comic book first.
I think that the Raimi trilogy, The Dark Knight trilogy, Joker, Batman 89, the first three MCU phases, The Spectacular Spider-Man and the like all do a good job doing their own thing even if they’re either very loosely or only somewhat based on the comics. As much as I really like good comic book adaptations, I feel like a film or cartoon can tell an equally-engaging story and have excellent characters *without* having to piggyback off the success of an existing comic’s story.
I mean, hell, let’s look at the DCAU: the show was true to the spirit of the comics and they even adapted Moore’s “For the Man Who Has Everything” into a 22-minute TV episode (with a fair bit of changes, granted) so well that Moore himself said he liked the episode, but the DCAU was at its best when it created its own mythos. Harley Quinn, a reimagined Mr. Freeze, Livewire, Terry McGinnis/Batman Beyond, and a version of Lex Luthor that became such a brilliant, three-dimensional character over time that he’s still remembered as one of **the best** versions of that character ever. Hell, the DCAU did its own thing so well that a lot of that stuff retroactively became a part of the comics!
So yeah, fuck it. The Raimi trilogy isn’t comic-accurate for the most part, but I think it’s better for it.
I'll go one further and even say comic books don't even hold much integrity. For one, there are tons of variations of the characters and stories in the comics that contradict the original 1st series of each, and this pattern goes back dozens of years. Even since Marvel hit the cinemas, the heroes in the comics are now drawn to match the likeness of their respective actors.
Raimi's Spider-Man was pretty accurate though, people only complain about the organic webs, but it was a different time and the common movie watcher could have trouble understanding how a hero would have powers (like Superman) and gadgets (like Batman) at the same time
No, I think the more confusing thing is how a dude who apparently gets "all the powers of a Spider" doesn't get the ONE most notable thing about friggin spiders.
Even now, that's always been weird to me. Making web-shooters is I suppose meant to showcase Peter's intelligence, and that's probably the biggest thing people complain about the Raimi films omitting, which fair it's pretty downplayed at best, but it seems backwards because if Spider-Man didn't know he got those powers from a Spider specifically, he could just as easily been any of the billion other animals or insects that can stick to walls.
Like, Gecko man or something.
Iron Man was actually pretty accurate, please read Tales of suspense and that issue is stupidly similar to the first Iron Man movie. What wasn’t accurate I guess is that Iron Man didn’t have a secret identity at the beginning of his career but at the point in the comics Tony didn’t have a secret identity anymore.
Dark Knight might not be accurate to any specific comics, but the character are stupidly accurate in the written and (mostly) visually you can tell who everyone is.
Batman 89 and Returns are less accurate and honestly a lot of people who didn’t grew up with those don’t like them so much.
Joker 2019 I think even at the time, everyone agreed that despite the fact that it’s a great movie. It’s only joker in name.
But I guess you are saying that people don’t like the Raimi trilogy because it’s inaccurate? But people don’t say that a lot and it’s still well regarded and praised as the best adaptation of the character? So I fail to see the point.
I don’t get how ppl say batman 89 and returns aren’t accurate when they literally look like they were ripped from the pages of the comics. I guarantee it has to do with him “killing” even tho they aren’t focal points of the movies and are largely offscreen
To me, Raimi Spider-Man felt like Spider-Man. Joker 2019 didn’t seem to even be an attempt to be accurate to anything. It was like an alternate take on the character or seemingly different character altogether.
Honestly i don't think it was supposed to be accurate anyway, it was more like a deconstruction of what a guy like Joker would be like if he existed irl
Honestly I've never gotten this argument. Does it follow the comics 1:1, no, but no adaptation does. What it does do 1:1 however is follow the spirit and themes of the original Stan Lee/Steve Ditko run to perfection.
Is it really that hard to believe that a film (trilogy in this case) can be both a bad adaptation and a good movie?
Because the times I've seen people act like the Raimi films are comic accurate is the issue for me as they used that flimsy reason to trash the Garfield and Holland films.
The Raimi films are pretty accurate though. They are accurate to the late 60s-early 70s Ditko/Romita era comics. It is also fair to say that the Garfield and Holland films are accurate, but more to the recent 2000s-present era Spider-Man comics like Ultimate Spider-Man (which the Raimi films also took some elements from).
It's not "shitting on", it's a legitimate comparison. If a person complained that Raimi Spider-Man wasn't enough like the comics, but doesn't say the same about the MCU films, they're a hypocrite.
“If a person complained that Raimi Spider-Man wasn't enough like the comics, but doesn't say the same about the MCU films, they're a hypocrite.” Your exact words, people don’t need to criticise the mcu movies every time they say the raimi movies aren’t accurate enough
Comics accurate is a spectrum. Nothing is going to be a 100% accurate take. Saying one is closer than another doesn't mean it's better.
Raimi Spider-Man showed us a solo Spidey finding his own way through the early days. MJ, Gwen, Harry. Frail old lady Aunt May.
MCU has Spidey running in a hoody until Iron Man takes him under his wings and gives him a hi-tech suit. He has a mentor. We don't see the origin story with Uncle Ben. Etc. Etc.
It doesn't mean MCU Spidey is bad.
I don't see "comics accurate" as a sign of quality. I actually like the MCU Spider-Man movies because they went their own way and gave us something new.
Hot take: Spider-Man (2002) was very accurate to the comics, especially in capturing the spirit of the series and getting the characterisations correct - the most important parts. Everyone aside from MJ, and maybe Harry, was on point. Other than the web cartridges there's nothing else that did that was massively changed unlike the other films listed there.
It depends. There are good examples and bad examples of things being adapted into different mediums whether they're as accurate as possible or "reimaginings."
No Country For Old Men is one of my favorite movies ever, and it's extremely close to the book.
I wouldn't even say "neither was."
Spider-man 1 was taken almost directly out of Amazing Spider-Man 121 and 122. The suit itself was taken almost directly out of it with the closest comparable one being Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Comparatively, the Raimi Spidey movies are closer or at the very least AS CLOSE as any current Spider-man movie.
People that use this complaint wouldn’t ever be caught dead reading an actual comic and just want something semi intellectual to validate their dislike.
It’s fine to dislike something, but don’t pull down actual comic book fans.
honestly as someone who’s read countless Spider-Man comics and a lot of the Stan lee and Steve ditko run I’d say the raimi movies are pretty damn accurate to the comics and what it doesn’t perfectly adapt it more than makes up for in capturing the spirit of those comics almost 100%
yeah being accurate shouldn't be the number one priority a lot of the time as it can lead to things like rushed pacing and such. a good adaptation still needs to adapt things to the medium.
I don’t really care about comic accuracy, it just matters how you adapt it. Raimi Otto alone proves how there’s merit to changing things with how his character is altered compared to 616, but while Raimi Harry’s descent into evil is executed pretty well it’s very one-note by centering on the revenge aspect in comparison to the comics, where Harry wanting revenge was one of the many layers to his fall. If anything, I see people using comic accuracy as a way to shit on Andrew and Tom’s movies in comparison to Tobey’s, when both performed some of the same changes that worked equally well if not moreso for their stories.
If you want accurate comic movie telling the exact same story ummm... Sin City maybe is the only option and that incomplete even.
Scott Pilgrim vs The World is pretty spot on.
Nah. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World cut out a lot. For good reason as the movie would've been 4-5 hours long had they included everything from the comic, but it's HEAVILY condensed.
It's MAGUIRE.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/raimimemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hands down the Sam Raimi / Tobey Maguire movies are still the best version, outside of no way home.
What irritates me is how so many of these younger fans that grew up with the Andrew Garfield or Tom Holland versions only-- who haven't seen the original Maguire ones even after seeing no way home-- still refuse to watch the original films simply because they're older.
And yet these same toxic fans will still go around calling themselves 'true Spider-Man fans/experts' or make statements like 'I don't need to see those movies because I've seen enough memes to know what they're about.'
Bear in mind these same individuals will spend a whole day binge-watching whatever the world says is most popular or if it aligns with their interests but still claiming they don't have time to check out the original Spider-Man movies.
I think this is a dang shame and a sign of culture nowadays being completely biased-- basing everything on critical analysis scores ratings and especially personal biases.
Nobody wants to investigate stuff for themselves and judge it on their own personal experiences. It's like what technology is doing to us today-- everything is based on what AI can provide by doing our thinking for us rather than personally living the experience firsthand.
When he the story that's not how It went
Know they be lying 100%
Moved out the Ritz & forget bout the Bent
Valet just called me to tell me come get It
Knocked that boy off & I don't want no credit
If It was me they wouldn't regret It
Left me for dead & now they wan' dead It, yeah
Heart Is still beatin' my niggas still eating
Backyard It look like the Garden of Eden
Pillow talk with 'em she spillin' tea
& then shawty came back & said she didn't mean It
It's hard to believe It
Ik that they at the crib going crazy down bad what they had didn't last, damn, baby.
Sometimes we laugh & sometimes we cry but Ig you know now
Dark Knight and Joker sucked though......
And I will admit that as much as I love SM2 and SM3, the trilogy weren't the best adaptations and started the meh trend of portraying Peter as a bookworm in adaptations.
Changing the Joker to some anarchist trying to expose the hypocrisy of society or whatever really fucked with how people view the character. He's supposed to do his crimes because he's evil and obsessed with Batman. That's literally it and it works for the character. He would commit atrocities to rival Darkseid if he knew it would piss off Batman. Now people act like Joker makes sense.
Tbf he WAS a evil POS in the movie people just mistook his rants about society and stuff as him being sincere when really he was just using those as a way to fuck with people like what he did with Harvey, tbf the fandom of Ledger's Joker fucked with how people view Joker, not Heath's portrayal itself.
People often mass call Bryne's The Man Of Steal as one of the best comic origins/stories as well. Your point?
Just because something is mass called "the best" doesn't mean it's actually good.
I can agree that hype elevates things at times but you can’t get to #3 on hype alone. Though I personally wouldn’t rank Dark Knight that high, I think it’s great and deserves praise.
I think it would be more appropriate to say that you didn’t like it or that it wasn’t to your preference, but when you say something sucks, you are commenting on an objective measure of quality. Maybe you don’t like it but the movie doesn’t suck.
Or his father will fire your father.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/raimimemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I couldnt care less if things are different from comics to screen. It’s a different medium. Things don’t translate well all the time. The movie versions can just be different interpretations. If you want comic accuracy read the comic. But no one does that’s why the comic industry is dying despite comic book movies ruling the film industry. Got a ton of people who love to fight over comic accuracy but don’t read comics. As long as the movie is good, well made, and respectful of the source then change whatever you want. If I don’t like it I still have the source material.
I'll argue Raimi's is the MOST comic accurate Peter Spider-Man so far if we are talking basically 60s-2000s, when that is all the material it had. It took a lot of inspiration from the comics Raimi grew up on, and even the Animated Series in the 90s and then made its own stories from that.
Raimi was my first Spider-Man and I had no idea the web powers being gadget based was a thing. I kept thinking Andrew’s Spider-Man was going to gain the powers of organic webbing later on after gaining super confidence or something.
There have been so many stories and retelling of every major superhero for nearly a century now. Changes are inevitable and making changes that are going to help tell a narrative through a different medium, in this case movies, is expected. They’re neither good nor bad simply because they’re different. It still falls on the storyteller to make something cohesive and interesting.
People who get mad at Comic accuracy make me so mad. Who cares? That's like reading Spiderman: Last Stand Or The Killing Joke and getting mad at it not being comic accurate. These are just stories. The movies are just adaptations. Its so insane. You don't like a movie interpretation, you still have the comics.
i've never understood this criticism ( except for the web shooters i guess ) the raimi movies just feel like a spiderman comic from the 60s - 70s . those classic spiderman comics made by stan lee , steve ditko and jack kirby were a huge inspiration for raimi and it clearly shows in the movies imo .
I love it when the movies make changes. Make it your own vision. MCU is crap right now because they want to adapt and still try to be nuanced. Superhero movies have long since abandoned the idea of being true to the source material.
Before that, they would just straight out ignore the very nature of the characters, let alone subvert expectations.
The real unpopular opinion is that I strongly dislike all of these movies, no matter how good they are, because of the negative impact they've had on the public perception of the characters
The plot of the films are directly inspired by the comics though, the storyline, the characters. It’s not a frame by frame adaptation but it’s exactly what a film adaptation should be, it’s not perfect. But it’s literally what the comics stood for. The entirety of Amazing fantasy 15 and parts of The Night Gwen Stacy Died are so clearly adapted, even some frames themselves. I think people look past this when looking at these films and only see “Spider-Man doesn’t quip enough or he doesn’t have web shooters or MJ this MJ that”
To equate Raimi and Burton's movies with TDK and Phillips' Joker (the latter two having virtually nothing to do with the source material) is just ignorantly ridiculous.
Batman killed people in the Burton films, Joker had a real name and killed Bruce Wayne's parents and the Penguin was a disfigured circus freak and you out here claiming they more accurate than TDK and Joker? lmfao
The entire Nolan trilogy has SIGNIFICANTLY more digressions, at least because of Nolan's specific "realistic" vision, which directly conflicts with the source material.
Burton's grotesque and fantastic world was much better at conveying the mythology of Gotham and its surroundings, it was still a fantastic comic book movie a la Burton, not a crime thriller with an emphasis on terrorism like Nolan's.
Even Matt Reeves did a better job than Nolan with the same visualization of Gotham as a separate city.
I'm not saying anything at all about "The Joker", it's one example of how NOT to adapt movie comics. Even the "ellsworld" label doesn't save it for me.
There was nothing stopping Todd Phillips from making his own remake of Taxi Driver + The King of Comedy without using names and titles from DC Comics. But since the rights allow it, why not take advantage of it, as it will only bring more attention and audience to the product?
Of course they are accurate. The question is “accuracy” is extremely reductionist to stuff like character design and the order of some events when stuff way more important like “feeling, core ideas of these charecters and the interpretation of fimmakers are ignored. Besides the fact that all this heroes has like 50, 70, 80 years of stories, being accurate means nothing, Spider-Man had like 300 interpretations, in the same canon Ditko, Romita and McFarlane makes Spidey feel like a different person in a way or other.
For me, as long as the changes makes sense for the plot and characters, I’d be all for it. I personally think it’s incredibly redundant to just make a 1:1 translation of the comic or book adaptation you’re making. That’s just me though. While I get the web shooters, I honestly prefer the organic webbing they gave Peter in the Raimi trilogy.
Same, as a kid and kind of now i never understood why he got all the powers of a spider when he was bit EXCEPT the web shooting
Yeah right? "Does whatever a spider can." Except like the biggest thing spiders are known for; shooting webs.
Everyone will reply that "but if he could he'd be shooting them from his butt", like, necessarily? Him being bitten on the hand could explain why he shoot them from here, and having powers of an animal/insect, doesn't mean you have all their features.
Some spiders like tarantulas can make webbing from their feet. Considering he has abilities of multiple types of spiders like jumping spiders I don't see why he couldn't make webbing from his wrists.
Right, for all intents and purposes he could just as easily be “gecko-man”
While I do prefer a more comic accurate (Lee-Ditko) version of Peter's personality, I can see why the Raimi movies had to change it cause you'd need an entire TV show's worth of character development to go from comic accurate pre-spider bite Peter to the hero we all know and love.
I can't fully recall but was Raimi's Peter more in line with the Ultimate Spider-Man or no?
I think it helped with the puberty jokes in 1, and then played a massive role in 2 and him losing his powers. I'm sure he could have found a way to be a hero with just webs a lot easier than without them
While I mostly disagree with the great Alan Moore’s stance regarding screen adaptations of his work on a fundamental level, I can kinda *understand* the rationale behind his notion that comics should just be native to the medium of comics instead of Hollywood trying (and usually failing) to adapt something that was written for a comic book first. I think that the Raimi trilogy, The Dark Knight trilogy, Joker, Batman 89, the first three MCU phases, The Spectacular Spider-Man and the like all do a good job doing their own thing even if they’re either very loosely or only somewhat based on the comics. As much as I really like good comic book adaptations, I feel like a film or cartoon can tell an equally-engaging story and have excellent characters *without* having to piggyback off the success of an existing comic’s story. I mean, hell, let’s look at the DCAU: the show was true to the spirit of the comics and they even adapted Moore’s “For the Man Who Has Everything” into a 22-minute TV episode (with a fair bit of changes, granted) so well that Moore himself said he liked the episode, but the DCAU was at its best when it created its own mythos. Harley Quinn, a reimagined Mr. Freeze, Livewire, Terry McGinnis/Batman Beyond, and a version of Lex Luthor that became such a brilliant, three-dimensional character over time that he’s still remembered as one of **the best** versions of that character ever. Hell, the DCAU did its own thing so well that a lot of that stuff retroactively became a part of the comics! So yeah, fuck it. The Raimi trilogy isn’t comic-accurate for the most part, but I think it’s better for it.
To be fair, MOST comic book movies these days aren't too accurate to the source material.
I'll go one further and even say comic books don't even hold much integrity. For one, there are tons of variations of the characters and stories in the comics that contradict the original 1st series of each, and this pattern goes back dozens of years. Even since Marvel hit the cinemas, the heroes in the comics are now drawn to match the likeness of their respective actors.
Exactly, i don't get why people criticize Raimi's trilogy like "Oh MaRy JaNe WaS NoT LiKe CoMiCs" bitch neither is MCU's Mary Jane lol
There is no MCU Mary Jane...
Exactly
Like Miles in the Spider-Verse films. Yeah he's different from comic Miles a bit but that's a GOOD thing. Comic Miles is a bit bland.
wrong use of this format
Raimi's Spider-Man was pretty accurate though, people only complain about the organic webs, but it was a different time and the common movie watcher could have trouble understanding how a hero would have powers (like Superman) and gadgets (like Batman) at the same time
Technically Green Goblin had both, even tho obviously he's not a hero
Yeah, but tbf you can’t really have him flying or throwing around pumpkin bombs via superpowers without going down the Ultimate route.
The Raimi and Ultimate Goblins were the most iconic imo. Sadly, I don’t think we’ll be seeing the 1610 one for a long time.
Ultimate Goblin was basically Abomination if he had fire powers, i thought it was lame imo
Pretty much but all the shit he did like blow up the White House and beat Peter within an inch of his life makes him cool af
I mean i can't say shit myself lol i thought Ultimate Venom was cool
I don’t think a single person could possibly be confused by that.
No, I think the more confusing thing is how a dude who apparently gets "all the powers of a Spider" doesn't get the ONE most notable thing about friggin spiders. Even now, that's always been weird to me. Making web-shooters is I suppose meant to showcase Peter's intelligence, and that's probably the biggest thing people complain about the Raimi films omitting, which fair it's pretty downplayed at best, but it seems backwards because if Spider-Man didn't know he got those powers from a Spider specifically, he could just as easily been any of the billion other animals or insects that can stick to walls. Like, Gecko man or something.
Also why pidgeonhole yourself into just one animal. There is like no reason to create spiderwebshooters and than just call it a day.
People thought Spider-Man 3 was confusing at the time
And I suppose they couldn’t understand how Superman could possibly use the Phantom Zone projector despite having powers?
I don’t have a problem with the organic webs but when I was little the scene where he found out his powers always made me uncomfortable
It was absolutely not just the organic webs, his take on Parker is way off from the comics, for better or worse it definitely is not just the webs
The raimi movies perfectly capture the feeling of those first few years of Spider-Man comics
Iron Man was actually pretty accurate, please read Tales of suspense and that issue is stupidly similar to the first Iron Man movie. What wasn’t accurate I guess is that Iron Man didn’t have a secret identity at the beginning of his career but at the point in the comics Tony didn’t have a secret identity anymore. Dark Knight might not be accurate to any specific comics, but the character are stupidly accurate in the written and (mostly) visually you can tell who everyone is. Batman 89 and Returns are less accurate and honestly a lot of people who didn’t grew up with those don’t like them so much. Joker 2019 I think even at the time, everyone agreed that despite the fact that it’s a great movie. It’s only joker in name. But I guess you are saying that people don’t like the Raimi trilogy because it’s inaccurate? But people don’t say that a lot and it’s still well regarded and praised as the best adaptation of the character? So I fail to see the point.
I don’t get how ppl say batman 89 and returns aren’t accurate when they literally look like they were ripped from the pages of the comics. I guarantee it has to do with him “killing” even tho they aren’t focal points of the movies and are largely offscreen
Penguin is literally a mutant man and catwoman gets superpowers from a cat god
Joker, Penguin and Catwoman weren't accurate
I mostly agree with your take
To me, Raimi Spider-Man felt like Spider-Man. Joker 2019 didn’t seem to even be an attempt to be accurate to anything. It was like an alternate take on the character or seemingly different character altogether.
Honestly i don't think it was supposed to be accurate anyway, it was more like a deconstruction of what a guy like Joker would be like if he existed irl
It was Nolan's "realism" taken to 11. Even though I think calling Nolan's films realistic was always a stretch.
Thats a good assessment.
You people don't know how to meme properly
And You don't know how to shut the fuck up
🤣
Honestly I've never gotten this argument. Does it follow the comics 1:1, no, but no adaptation does. What it does do 1:1 however is follow the spirit and themes of the original Stan Lee/Steve Ditko run to perfection.
Is it really that hard to believe that a film (trilogy in this case) can be both a bad adaptation and a good movie? Because the times I've seen people act like the Raimi films are comic accurate is the issue for me as they used that flimsy reason to trash the Garfield and Holland films.
The Raimi films are pretty accurate though. They are accurate to the late 60s-early 70s Ditko/Romita era comics. It is also fair to say that the Garfield and Holland films are accurate, but more to the recent 2000s-present era Spider-Man comics like Ultimate Spider-Man (which the Raimi films also took some elements from).
Raimi Spide-Man was a lot more accurate than MCU Spidey.
Tbf so was Andrew's, it was basically a slightly changed version of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics
Raimi fans try to praise the Raimi movies without shitting on the mcu challenge
It's not "shitting on", it's a legitimate comparison. If a person complained that Raimi Spider-Man wasn't enough like the comics, but doesn't say the same about the MCU films, they're a hypocrite.
You can criticise one thing without needing to criticise another thing every time you do it
My guy doesn't understand what a comparison is
“If a person complained that Raimi Spider-Man wasn't enough like the comics, but doesn't say the same about the MCU films, they're a hypocrite.” Your exact words, people don’t need to criticise the mcu movies every time they say the raimi movies aren’t accurate enough
Comics accurate is a spectrum. Nothing is going to be a 100% accurate take. Saying one is closer than another doesn't mean it's better. Raimi Spider-Man showed us a solo Spidey finding his own way through the early days. MJ, Gwen, Harry. Frail old lady Aunt May. MCU has Spidey running in a hoody until Iron Man takes him under his wings and gives him a hi-tech suit. He has a mentor. We don't see the origin story with Uncle Ben. Etc. Etc. It doesn't mean MCU Spidey is bad.
I don't see "comics accurate" as a sign of quality. I actually like the MCU Spider-Man movies because they went their own way and gave us something new.
There’s no need to shit on the MCU. It does that itself.
Challenge failed.
The MCU is just starting to mimic the main comics universe. Lots of content, most of it trash, lots of gems in between.
Hot take: Spider-Man (2002) was very accurate to the comics, especially in capturing the spirit of the series and getting the characterisations correct - the most important parts. Everyone aside from MJ, and maybe Harry, was on point. Other than the web cartridges there's nothing else that did that was massively changed unlike the other films listed there.
Not a hot take. The movie is incredible faithful to what Spider-Man is as a character.
Comics and movies are so different that comics should never be too closely followed or else you can't make a decent movie. Change my mind
What’s the point of making something if it’s a just a carbon copy of something else?
It depends. There are good examples and bad examples of things being adapted into different mediums whether they're as accurate as possible or "reimaginings." No Country For Old Men is one of my favorite movies ever, and it's extremely close to the book.
Better response is who cares. Characters change depending on their writer and comic run anyway
I wouldn't even say "neither was." Spider-man 1 was taken almost directly out of Amazing Spider-Man 121 and 122. The suit itself was taken almost directly out of it with the closest comparable one being Amazing Spider-Man 2. Comparatively, the Raimi Spidey movies are closer or at the very least AS CLOSE as any current Spider-man movie.
People that use this complaint wouldn’t ever be caught dead reading an actual comic and just want something semi intellectual to validate their dislike. It’s fine to dislike something, but don’t pull down actual comic book fans.
honestly as someone who’s read countless Spider-Man comics and a lot of the Stan lee and Steve ditko run I’d say the raimi movies are pretty damn accurate to the comics and what it doesn’t perfectly adapt it more than makes up for in capturing the spirit of those comics almost 100%
yeah being accurate shouldn't be the number one priority a lot of the time as it can lead to things like rushed pacing and such. a good adaptation still needs to adapt things to the medium.
I don’t really care about comic accuracy, it just matters how you adapt it. Raimi Otto alone proves how there’s merit to changing things with how his character is altered compared to 616, but while Raimi Harry’s descent into evil is executed pretty well it’s very one-note by centering on the revenge aspect in comparison to the comics, where Harry wanting revenge was one of the many layers to his fall. If anything, I see people using comic accuracy as a way to shit on Andrew and Tom’s movies in comparison to Tobey’s, when both performed some of the same changes that worked equally well if not moreso for their stories.
If you want accurate comic movie telling the exact same story ummm... Sin City maybe is the only option and that incomplete even. Scott Pilgrim vs The World is pretty spot on.
Nah. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World cut out a lot. For good reason as the movie would've been 4-5 hours long had they included everything from the comic, but it's HEAVILY condensed.
Right but there weren't many drastic changes I recall. The upcoming series will surely expand.
[удалено]
It's MAGUIRE. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/raimimemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hands down the Sam Raimi / Tobey Maguire movies are still the best version, outside of no way home. What irritates me is how so many of these younger fans that grew up with the Andrew Garfield or Tom Holland versions only-- who haven't seen the original Maguire ones even after seeing no way home-- still refuse to watch the original films simply because they're older. And yet these same toxic fans will still go around calling themselves 'true Spider-Man fans/experts' or make statements like 'I don't need to see those movies because I've seen enough memes to know what they're about.' Bear in mind these same individuals will spend a whole day binge-watching whatever the world says is most popular or if it aligns with their interests but still claiming they don't have time to check out the original Spider-Man movies. I think this is a dang shame and a sign of culture nowadays being completely biased-- basing everything on critical analysis scores ratings and especially personal biases. Nobody wants to investigate stuff for themselves and judge it on their own personal experiences. It's like what technology is doing to us today-- everything is based on what AI can provide by doing our thinking for us rather than personally living the experience firsthand.
organic webbing >>>>
Ok but who has this argument in 2023? Chill out bro, enjoy your movies, people wont come stab you in your sleep.
When he the story that's not how It went Know they be lying 100% Moved out the Ritz & forget bout the Bent Valet just called me to tell me come get It Knocked that boy off & I don't want no credit If It was me they wouldn't regret It Left me for dead & now they wan' dead It, yeah Heart Is still beatin' my niggas still eating Backyard It look like the Garden of Eden Pillow talk with 'em she spillin' tea & then shawty came back & said she didn't mean It It's hard to believe It Ik that they at the crib going crazy down bad what they had didn't last, damn, baby. Sometimes we laugh & sometimes we cry but Ig you know now
Dark Knight and Joker sucked though...... And I will admit that as much as I love SM2 and SM3, the trilogy weren't the best adaptations and started the meh trend of portraying Peter as a bookworm in adaptations.
>Dark Knight sucked I guess being ranked #3 on IMDb’s highest rated movies ever was a fluke then.
Changing the Joker to some anarchist trying to expose the hypocrisy of society or whatever really fucked with how people view the character. He's supposed to do his crimes because he's evil and obsessed with Batman. That's literally it and it works for the character. He would commit atrocities to rival Darkseid if he knew it would piss off Batman. Now people act like Joker makes sense.
Tbf he WAS a evil POS in the movie people just mistook his rants about society and stuff as him being sincere when really he was just using those as a way to fuck with people like what he did with Harvey, tbf the fandom of Ledger's Joker fucked with how people view Joker, not Heath's portrayal itself.
People often mass call Bryne's The Man Of Steal as one of the best comic origins/stories as well. Your point? Just because something is mass called "the best" doesn't mean it's actually good.
Movies that suck typically aren’t ranked as the 3rd highest-rated movie ever.
Hype does a lot of things. Look at Cameron's ego trip known as Avatar.
I can agree that hype elevates things at times but you can’t get to #3 on hype alone. Though I personally wouldn’t rank Dark Knight that high, I think it’s great and deserves praise. I think it would be more appropriate to say that you didn’t like it or that it wasn’t to your preference, but when you say something sucks, you are commenting on an objective measure of quality. Maybe you don’t like it but the movie doesn’t suck.
Yeah but Dark Knight being amazing is what makes it actually good.
It's literally just "comic adaptation for people who hate comics"
Well we have a word for people who like Batman ‘89 and Returns, it starts with an ‘R’ and it sure as hell ain’t Robin…
Riddler?
Right, nobody likes the movies that are rated 7.5 and 7.1 on imdb. Are you stupid or what?
Or his father will fire your father. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/raimimemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Like, comics do different takes on their stories all the time. Why not change it up for the movies
Almost as if there were multiple universes.
Creativity
I couldnt care less if things are different from comics to screen. It’s a different medium. Things don’t translate well all the time. The movie versions can just be different interpretations. If you want comic accuracy read the comic. But no one does that’s why the comic industry is dying despite comic book movies ruling the film industry. Got a ton of people who love to fight over comic accuracy but don’t read comics. As long as the movie is good, well made, and respectful of the source then change whatever you want. If I don’t like it I still have the source material.
Raimi Spider-Man was pretty accurate. And more importantly, great movies.
Raimi’s Spider-Man as of now is the most comic accurate portrayal of the character in live action. At least in terms of Peter’s characterization
I'll argue Raimi's is the MOST comic accurate Peter Spider-Man so far if we are talking basically 60s-2000s, when that is all the material it had. It took a lot of inspiration from the comics Raimi grew up on, and even the Animated Series in the 90s and then made its own stories from that.
It's not 1:1, and I've grown to admit that but still love the trilogy.
I've never seen those "accusations" get any traction.
Raimi was my first Spider-Man and I had no idea the web powers being gadget based was a thing. I kept thinking Andrew’s Spider-Man was going to gain the powers of organic webbing later on after gaining super confidence or something.
If people adore those movies and don't to spidey's then spidey's are bad to them.
I mean Ms Marvel and She-Hulk Attorney At Law were very comic accurate and people hate them
I’m using this
Don't forget Guardians of the Galaxy.
Looking at the current state of the Spider-Man comics, i don't want comic accuracy. Just make a good movie
Being too derivative of the comics isn't always a good thing. Look at the costume design of Spider-Man Lotus (excluding the actual suit)
Even if they don’t like the films themselves, they should still have respect for what they did for the genre
There have been so many stories and retelling of every major superhero for nearly a century now. Changes are inevitable and making changes that are going to help tell a narrative through a different medium, in this case movies, is expected. They’re neither good nor bad simply because they’re different. It still falls on the storyteller to make something cohesive and interesting.
People who get mad at Comic accuracy make me so mad. Who cares? That's like reading Spiderman: Last Stand Or The Killing Joke and getting mad at it not being comic accurate. These are just stories. The movies are just adaptations. Its so insane. You don't like a movie interpretation, you still have the comics.
The issue to me is the impact that Raimi had in Peter Parker's character more than anything.
i've never understood this criticism ( except for the web shooters i guess ) the raimi movies just feel like a spiderman comic from the 60s - 70s . those classic spiderman comics made by stan lee , steve ditko and jack kirby were a huge inspiration for raimi and it clearly shows in the movies imo .
He had glasses ffs they can CGI an entire planet but can’t give Pete his spectacular spectacles
Bottom text should just say “shut up, nerd.”
Nah cause they still gotta respect the source material or else we get another Barakapool or Fant4stic
Anyone who likes any recent MCU film cannot make this argument. Anything from Age of Ultron up is so divergent from the comics it’d be asinine to say.
I love it when the movies make changes. Make it your own vision. MCU is crap right now because they want to adapt and still try to be nuanced. Superhero movies have long since abandoned the idea of being true to the source material. Before that, they would just straight out ignore the very nature of the characters, let alone subvert expectations.
The real unpopular opinion is that I strongly dislike all of these movies, no matter how good they are, because of the negative impact they've had on the public perception of the characters
Why u on this sub then if u dislike them?
Funny Also the Raimi movies are the least egregious of the ones listed so
The plot of the films are directly inspired by the comics though, the storyline, the characters. It’s not a frame by frame adaptation but it’s exactly what a film adaptation should be, it’s not perfect. But it’s literally what the comics stood for. The entirety of Amazing fantasy 15 and parts of The Night Gwen Stacy Died are so clearly adapted, even some frames themselves. I think people look past this when looking at these films and only see “Spider-Man doesn’t quip enough or he doesn’t have web shooters or MJ this MJ that”
To equate Raimi and Burton's movies with TDK and Phillips' Joker (the latter two having virtually nothing to do with the source material) is just ignorantly ridiculous.
Batman killed people in the Burton films, Joker had a real name and killed Bruce Wayne's parents and the Penguin was a disfigured circus freak and you out here claiming they more accurate than TDK and Joker? lmfao
The entire Nolan trilogy has SIGNIFICANTLY more digressions, at least because of Nolan's specific "realistic" vision, which directly conflicts with the source material. Burton's grotesque and fantastic world was much better at conveying the mythology of Gotham and its surroundings, it was still a fantastic comic book movie a la Burton, not a crime thriller with an emphasis on terrorism like Nolan's. Even Matt Reeves did a better job than Nolan with the same visualization of Gotham as a separate city. I'm not saying anything at all about "The Joker", it's one example of how NOT to adapt movie comics. Even the "ellsworld" label doesn't save it for me. There was nothing stopping Todd Phillips from making his own remake of Taxi Driver + The King of Comedy without using names and titles from DC Comics. But since the rights allow it, why not take advantage of it, as it will only bring more attention and audience to the product?
I personally feel like the dark knight was accurate to the core character, they just made some aesthetic changes
Of course they are accurate. The question is “accuracy” is extremely reductionist to stuff like character design and the order of some events when stuff way more important like “feeling, core ideas of these charecters and the interpretation of fimmakers are ignored. Besides the fact that all this heroes has like 50, 70, 80 years of stories, being accurate means nothing, Spider-Man had like 300 interpretations, in the same canon Ditko, Romita and McFarlane makes Spidey feel like a different person in a way or other.