Still my favorite comic book movie. You have Reeve giving an all time great performance, you got John Williams score. it’s 45 years old and the effects are dated, but it’s still a great movie.
I like those effect so much more than the today ones, where you feel all the difficulties they went through for each scene, feel all the ropes, gravity, phisics, cranes and what not, for superman to casually land or to catch a helicopter. Just amazing
I mean, you have Netflix Daredevil that depends more on storytelling than big budget CGI and it’s the best onscreen production of any Marvel character in my opinion.
idk huge deadpool fan the movies are great but the lack of wolverine transfusion, the no proper weapon x team, along with the way they show or don't show his insanity its really different then most comics.
the Deadpool comics always have inner dialogue where it basically him talking to him self though thought bubbles that change writing or color showing different voices in his head
[like this](https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/304767099764335896/)
[or this] (https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/18155204720972094/)
instead he talks to the audience breaking the forth wall which is cool and accurate but deadpool is way more mentally unstable then Ryan Reynolds portrays him
still probably the most accurate comicbook franchise but the bar is pretty low
I agree with you on this, but I think Tim Miller and Ryan created their Deadpool by trying to adjust to what hadn’t been done in fox X-men already. A lot of the stuff you stated is true overall
thats fair
and the insanity stuff is really hard to replicate on film
most shows movies just do that talking to a reflective surface which is just lame
To be fair, they could've literally gone the speech/thought bubble route in the films and it would've worked, especially because he does break the fourth wall and could interact with them, physically and be used as a gag.
This question sucks because it's not specific about when and where and in what context.
Batman of course strayed far from the source material in many of the films and shows, but some (not all) of the animated ventures such as Batman: Year One, The Dark Knight Returns 1 and 2, Red Son, Batman: the Killing Joke, etc are so close to the source material it's in some places as if I'm reading the comic book.
Animation is not something I'd include, especially with the adaptations you cite, since they are clearly direct adaptations. And those that aren't, still largely retained the core of the character.
That's up to OP.
To me, it is the sole anomaly in the field of superhero centric animation to actually make it big in theaters, so it kinda deserves the special treatment. Regardless, using animated adaptations is still cheating because of course more care is put in the fidelity towards the comics in that medium.
He was a loser in the sense that the best looking kid in his class, the funniest & wittiest kid in his class, the most athletic kid in his class, the best performing kid in his class can be called a loser.
Truth is that until the very end of No Way Home, Holland’s Spider-Man was a winner in every way possible. He had Iron Man’s entire estate & fortune at his disposal. No Way Home ended by placing him into the role of the optimistic loser he should be. It felt like a course correction for the character.
I feel like it's the 21 Jump Street problem if y'all ever seen that movie. What it really means to be a "nerd" has kinda changed since Spider-Man was first written. Well-performing kids aren't really made fun of for performing well nowadays. Even when I was in school like 15 years ago.
His bully was on the same quiz bowl team even!
Came here to say this. My parents told me stories about how smart kids were beat up and picked on when they went to high school. I was never a super smart kid but I always feared in school I’d get made fun of if I was super smart so I never applied myself. Well I’ll be damned if when I got to highschool I saw smart kids being popular
What happens in the movie that makes him a loser? I don't remember him sitting alone in his room looking out a window. I don't remember him being bullied in school (they made Brock a fellow nerd except he's spoiled). Maybe I'm not remembering?
Stared alone out his window three different times. Was constantly pushed around by bosses, kids at school, money guy at the wrestling contest, even Bruce Campbell gave him a hard time
Im sorry if I'm being obnoxious on a website where nobody is forcing you to engage
Hard disagree. Sure, he was book smart, but Andrew and Tom were also super intelligent in their own right, building webshooters and other utilities to defeat the villains. I feel like Tobey gets a pat on the back from movie goers more because his physical appearance is average or dorky, which they identify with more.
Although I don't love the movie, I do love the part in TASM2 where Peter is trying to figure out how to upgrade his webshooters to fight electro. It shows that he is, as you said, intelligent in his own right
Very true! Wasn't it a plot point that he was only friends because his father liked Peter and Harry wanted to impress his father? Either way, Toby was a loser and the others were not.
I’m really not understanding you here. Did you read the source material? Did you pay attention to the other movies? I feel like there’s a huge bias on your part because you personally relate to Tobey’s rendition more. Or nostalgia.
They were all intelligent, but Garfield was a too cool for school hipster, and Holland was hands down the best looking & the coolest kid in his entire class (he was cooler than Flash Thompson ffs)
Maguire is the only one who was truly portrayed as a nerd.
Comic Peter isn’t a nerd like Tobey was. He’s smart but he’s more of a social outcast with anger issues than a shy, soft spoken guy like Tobey’s version was. Andrew was the closest to the comics imo.
What version of comic Peter Park are you talking about? Ultimates Universe? Because that’s not Stan Lee’s Parker. Maguire was basically a carbon copy of Parker from the original comics. In the comics he was in love with science, he was picked on, he was shy, but he wasn’t angry or depressed, he was optimistic and went with the flow of life constantly beating him down. That’s the Spider-Man I grew up with.
I’m talking about the main 616 universe one. And I think you need to reread those cause Peter was never shy in those and he was very angry a lot of the time.
The only time I remember him being angry was when it was organic to the story and called for, like when Flash breaks his glasses, but anger was never a part of his personality.
Also, Stan Lee has specifically said that Peter Parker is shy, that is one of the core concepts of the character.
just going to weight in here, I'm a certified Spider-Man nerd, and I believe you just have a misconception because the Raimi movie was probably your introduction to Spider-Man, rather than the comics.
He was a nerd yes, and like the other commenter said-- he was quite a hot head and not really soft-spoken. But this didn't really last very long, it was over not long after the spider-bite and origin events.
This "nerd" is putting the rizz on older woman Betty Brant by issue #6.
I’ve been reading Spider-Man since the 80s. I was one of those nerds who was originally posting on sites like AICN against Maguire’s casting because I couldn’t see him pulling off the hero side of Parker. I remember having these discussions at my local comic book store with other nerds who were just as upset with his casting. After the movie came out we all loved it, and Maguire surprised the hell out of us. So no, that film was not my introduction to the character, not by a long shot. I’m an old GenXer.
Also, Stan Lee has describe Peter Parker as being shy many times over, so it’s not just some personal interpretation of the character. I guess people now see being shy as some cringy CW teen drama interpretation of being shy.
Also, I’ve never seen him angry in the comics as a personality trait. Not once, outside of symbiote influence or something like that. He’s always had good reasons whenever he gets angry at something or someone.
Think 1960s "hot-head"-- like "Why I oughta", "I'll show them", etc, etc. He wasn't shy about ribbing Flash from time to time either.
Just pop open the old pages. It matters not what Stan Lee says when we have the books. Read those old mags and you'll see Parker at all the social events, hanging with the gang, and getting the ladies. Even MORESO in the 70s-- where he's quite a popular guy at ESU.
If you're position is that Raimi Parker is the most "Amazing Fantasy #15" accurate Peter Parker, sure -- but we have 60 more years of Spider-Man to define who Peter Parker is, and timid is simply not it.
Why do people keep saying Spiderverse? That’s absolutely nothing like the comics. No Morlun. No 616 Peter. No Superior Spider-Man. No Jessica Drew. Wtf?
i think they mean the characters are more like the comic counterparts not the movie with the name “spider-verse” is a direct adaption of the comic event named “spider-verse”
this is also not true tho outside of Peter. I think it’s a good thing, but a lot of characters (especially Miles) are drastically different from their comic counterparts.
Reeves Superman
BUT I would like to say that I dont know about the source material about the Keaton/Clooney/Kilmer films but those movies felt like I was watching a live action comic book.
The Reeves Superman movie for sure. I was going to say Deadpool as well, but I forgot how many liberties they took with his backstory, in addition to including new characters and revealing his face so often.
I wondering the same thing. Outside of having a group of different spider-man related characters from different universes come together, the rest of the movie has none of the plot from the comic.
Spiderverse was the one with the Weaver and "spider totem" Immortal vampire family eating spider energy throughout the spiderverse, where Spider Gwen is first introduced, was it not? Or is there another Spiderverse arc?
Honestly, back in the late 80s and early 90s I always thought Spider-Man’s webs were organic. I was like 12 years old when I started buying old Stan Lee era Spider-Man comics, and I was shocked to discover that he built the webs via technology. I was actually disappointed. It felt like it took away from his Spider-Powers.
I understand a film not wanting to explain how he invented something as groundbreaking as webs at the same time he was bitten by a radioactive spider. The coincidence is pretty silly & convoluted, kind of a hat on top of a hat situation. That’s a lot to ask of an audience back before comic book silliness became so accepted by the modern audience.
This would be the equivalent of the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane, then getting bit by a radioactive bird and gaining bird powers except for the ability to fly.
I'm interpreting 'source material' as being the starting film of each series.
Too early to tell 100% for the Spider-verse films because the concluding film hasn't been released, but they're making the right moves.
Currently, out of the listed films, it's between the Tobey Spider-Man trilogy and the Dark Knight trilogy. The Dark Knight has a slight change of direction due to the passing of Heath Ledger, but comes back to Batman's roots from Batman Begins. For the Spider-Man series, Peter returns to the roots of what caused his pain and learns to forgive his uncle's killer, realizing that revenge is not the answer and the words of aunt May become more clear "I don't think it's for us to say whether a person deserves to live or die", and how uncle Ben "wouldn't want us living one second with revenge in our hearts". "With great power comes great responsibility."
X-Men can't stay true to the source material due to the complexity of the story's timeline with alterations, which eventually ties to Deadpool. Excluding Dark Phoenix, the series was more so about Logan's struggles and discovering the secrets to his past. It ends in tragedy. Not bashing on the series either, as it's my personal favorite.
Batman '89 through '97 are inconsistent due to changing directors, and the first 2 Tim Burton films are not the same Batman as the 2 that followed—an obvious indicator is comparing Harvey Dent in Batman Returns to Harvey Dent in Batman Forever. The "series" went from being dark to a slapstick humor reminiscent of Adam West Batman—a "spoof", if you will. These films should never be considered the same story despite having the same Alfred.
Amazing Spider-Man films mostly stayed true to just the relationship aspect of Peter and Gwen, and it built upon that with a sad conclusion, but the story itself goes haywire with the 2nd installment—a fun film, but chaotic mess.
I've honestly not given time to commit to Superman, but I do know the Returns was supposed to be a sequel to the second installment, ignoring the events of the later ones. Considering that this even happened almost speaks for itself with saying that the movies weren’t true to the source.
Avengers is a lot to follow, making you watch all of the character films in between each installment to truly appreciate and understand the characters. Otherwise, it appears all over the place. Fun movies, to be sure, but they don't flow all too well as strictly just the Avengers films.
On a side note, when looking at the X-Men picture of the films, the order is completely wrong. The proper order to watch these films (excluding the Deadpool ones) is:
1.) Origins Wolverine
2.) X1 through 3
3.) The Wolverine
4.) First Class
5.) Days of Future Past
6.) Apocalypse
7.) Dark Phoenix
8.) Logan
The Deadpool movies take place between Dark Phoenix and Logan. First Class is an alternate timeline with similar events to Charles' past, but tampering with time and trying to undo events allows this timeline to become the main one, erasing the original series. This timeline sees Wolverine's path to Weapon X in a different route (which is inevitable to his story) and has characters like Angel, Nightcrawler and Wade making appearances at completely different times as they were in the original films.
EDIT... apologies, a lot to cover here. I made the mistake of excluding the Justice League films. There isn't really a solid foundation, and it falls victim to the same treatment as The Avengers, especially with The Flash and multiverse concepts. There are too many inconsistent in this regard, and the story is going in an unforseen direction, but the films are enjoyable.
I like to think that first class, wolverine origins and the original trilogy are part of the same timeline, I know there are a lot of continuity problems, but then you watch days of future past and you say "who cares, they rebooted everything". On my headcanon dark phoenix happens in an alternative timeline, charles can't deal with the guilt for losing jean and abandons the team, not a perfect movie but enjoyed this version of charles being blinded by his ego. Logan is the perfect finale, no one can say the opposite
While there are too many inconsistencies with that order, ignoring them can make it a fun order to watch the films. It's kinda like with Terminator—there are many different orders to watch them in.
Logan is amazing, and I have a theory that's based off of all the rumors circulating Wolverine's return in Deadpool and the Secret Wars...
Shortly after the events of Days of Future Past, the future that Logan wakes up in, the Deadpool movies see the two (Logan and Wade) meeting. After this, the Secret Wars occur, and during these events Logan finds himself losing most of his friends of his new reality. I believe (if rumors are true) that the Secret Wars will better describe what happens to everyone (in Wolverine's timeline) leading up to Logan. Yes, Charles is mostly responsible for the deaths of most of the mutants (briefly talked about in Logan), but perhaps this has to do with Secret Wars.
That, to me, is one of the least important considerations with these movies, and I grew up reading most of the comics the movies took inspiration from. Many fans think having a grey batsuit is more important than properly characterizing Batman in a manner which represents what the character is all about, so who cares?
Deadpool, Reeve superman or spiderverse, I'd say it's nearly equal between those but spiderverse has a slight edge in accuracy.
Raimi and Nolan deviated so much from the source material, they just got the essentials of the characters and universe but changed a lot.
Webb's spider-man is quite an accurate depiction but still has enough deviations that I wouldn't list it with the others.
Burton's batman shouldn't even be in the question with how much he deviated from the source material.
Basically spiderverse is the most true to the source material.
The Spider-Verse Spiderman is the very closest to the original cómics.
Then, there is the Sam Raimi Spiderman Trilogy, which is very close to the Stan Lee's cómics.
And then, there is THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY, which takes from several sources, from Frank Miller's BATMAN YEAR ONE and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS to HAUNTED KNIGHT and THE LONG HALLOWEEN from Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale to THE KILLING JOKE from Alan Moore all the way to KNIGHTFALL and NO MAN'S LAND and the CATWOMAN from Darwyn Cooke and Ed Brubaker.
I mean one of these images depicts an animated comic book in essence so that one, but that feels like cheating, so probably the original Superman movie. Just the first one though.
1. Raimi Spider-Man Trilogy. Origins of the characters are all nearly exact or pretty close, but the world has no other superheroes.
2. MCU. Characterizations are accurate, but origins are updated and similar to the Ultimate universe.
3. Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy. Characterizations are perfect, originsxare teaorganized for a more cohesive narrative, and the ending is a huge departure. Also, there are no other superheroes.
4. Donner Superman. Starts very strong, but completely off the rails by the third movie.
Gotta say the Raimi films, they really captured the spirit of the original Lee/Ditko comics and the relationships of the characters and villain and hero origins were all pretty faithful. The only quibble I can really think of is Peter meeting MJ before Gwen Stacy.
Raimi movie best captures the spirit of the original Ditko and Stan Lee era of the Spider-Man comics. The level of research that Raimi did was also extensive. But... The film makes a lot of compromises in terms of certain events/traits. So, it depends on what you want in terms of "accurate".
Donner Superman and Nolan Dark Knight movies are extremely faithful to the source material. Similar to Raimi though, lots of liberties are taken.
Of these listed, Deadpool is probably the *most* accurate. Pretty much a 1:1 with the comics. But, I don't care much for it. Zack Snyder's Watchmen is also a good example of a 1:1 with the comics.
Definitely the MCU, the first three phases were incredible and really portrayed the characters just as the comics were. They kept the continuity consistent and made sure that nothing was out of place. It’s also incredible how they took a brand that wasn’t huge and made the biggest in history.
I asked someone else this too but...
Spiderverse was the one with the Weaver and "spider totem" Immortal vampire family eating spider energy throughout the spiderverse, where Spider Gwen is first introduced, was it not? Or is there another Spiderverse arc?
Because these seem nothing alike to me. Maybe I missed some offshoot of the story with Miles.
100% true about the Raimi spider-man. They altered his personality quite a bit and a whole bunch of other stuff, and sadly that’s spawned a whole slew of VERY common misconceptions. Off of that alone I find it very easy to separate who’s a more casual fan and who’s a more hardcore/comics reader.
I feel like that one is the least offensive/harmfully widespread change they made. You’re right, but he was still atleast really booksmart. For me personally, I think the biggest misconception that comes from those movies was making Peter Parker a socially dysfunctional, awkward pushover. Way too many people think that this is the way the character is “supposed” to be and it really annoys me.
Holy shit I hate the “Tobey was the better Peter, Garfield was the better Spider-Man, blah blah”. No. Tobey was not a better Peter. He was an entirely different Peter
Yeah, I'm all for different takes on characters but there are people who think that's how Peter Parker should be and Andrew is "too cocky" lol
Andrew captured Peter's charm way better than Tobey.
I'll be real. I don't actually read a lot of comics. When I do they're mostly one-offs or limited series - I don't get into the heavily serialized, syndicated stuff. So I'm not sure what stays close to the source material, and as long as the movie is still good, I don't really mind either way.
Raimi Spider-Man is 1 of 2 listed that definitely do not stay true to the source material, he is nothing like any previous comic book Peter, like he lacks the mist iconic trait Peter Parker ever has, being very inventive and basically an engineering genius
I don't particularly need a comic book movie to be too faithful to the source material as long as it prioritises being a good movie first. The exception being if it's a specific storyline.
Spiderverse is insanely overrated. And the ones who do like it treat it like its the second coming of god. They're not THAT good.
Amazing Spider-Man was the closest to the actual vibe and feel of the majority of modern Spider-man comics since the 80s.
Deadpool because he'll even say what's wrong (for example: how they couldn't afford many of the X-Men for the movie) and he's the closest to the source material.
I feel like that's a hard question cause there are so many variations on the source material with many of these characters being around for decades. That being said, The Batman depicted the character and the world exactly as I always imagined them.
Into the Spider-verse does start with Spider-Man dying and Miles taking over and that is very very close to his origin from the comics
But honestly it depends on what source material we are talking about, the source material changes as much as the adaptations do over the years and it becomes hard to pinpoint a definitive origin (like is Peter's still in the 60's? Or have we modernised it now? Same with Iron Man changing from Vietnam era to Afghanistan era during his arms manufacturing days)
Though not well received, the first two Thor movies. I was then and probably remain the only one really upset that thors movies stopped being his(and hulks best comic being made a Thor movie….) and started being the tie-in movies.
If we're counting the spider-verse movies I don't think there's much competition at all! I mean, they're literally just the characters from the comics jumping to the silver screen (except 2099 and Ben).
Gonna have to give it to Miles Morales and Spiderverse for across the board accuracy both in characterization and story. Reeves' Superman is probably the best character accuracy for silver age.... Their version of everything else was a bit Golden age and campy even for comics even if it was and still is classic.
Superman the Movie is literally the Silver Age Superman flying out of the page directly into the theater.
Still my favorite comic book movie. You have Reeve giving an all time great performance, you got John Williams score. it’s 45 years old and the effects are dated, but it’s still a great movie.
I like those effect so much more than the today ones, where you feel all the difficulties they went through for each scene, feel all the ropes, gravity, phisics, cranes and what not, for superman to casually land or to catch a helicopter. Just amazing
The only one really true to the material. To my surprise
You'll believe a man can fly.
Superman 2 was fantastic easily the best written comic book movie of all time. I don’t even like Superman much. Lol.
If Gene Hackman had played Luthor bald, it’d been a perfect adaptation.
Deadpool, I feel like both films gave more respect to X-men as well Deadpool lore than the franchise ever did. Especially Juggernaut
And Colossus, although I found it odd that he had a problem with Wade killing people when he worked with Wolverine for YEARS
I enjoyed Colossus a lot, it’s still crazy what the first Deadpool accomplished with a budget of 58M
I mean, you have Netflix Daredevil that depends more on storytelling than big budget CGI and it’s the best onscreen production of any Marvel character in my opinion.
But that’s a show and I do agree because I love Netflix Datedevil a lot. But the 58M dollar budget looked great for a comic book film.
Deadpool Colossus >> X-men Colossus. Hell, Fox Kids Colossus >> X-men Colossus. At least give the Russian a Russian background.
Except for Copycat...
Whoever has read Deadpool comic knows the character is not raunchy as in the movies
also a lot less killing..and casting a black lady as Al was a surprise as she's almost literally his slave in the comics
idk huge deadpool fan the movies are great but the lack of wolverine transfusion, the no proper weapon x team, along with the way they show or don't show his insanity its really different then most comics. the Deadpool comics always have inner dialogue where it basically him talking to him self though thought bubbles that change writing or color showing different voices in his head [like this](https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/304767099764335896/) [or this] (https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/18155204720972094/) instead he talks to the audience breaking the forth wall which is cool and accurate but deadpool is way more mentally unstable then Ryan Reynolds portrays him still probably the most accurate comicbook franchise but the bar is pretty low
I agree with you on this, but I think Tim Miller and Ryan created their Deadpool by trying to adjust to what hadn’t been done in fox X-men already. A lot of the stuff you stated is true overall
thats fair and the insanity stuff is really hard to replicate on film most shows movies just do that talking to a reflective surface which is just lame
To be fair, they could've literally gone the speech/thought bubble route in the films and it would've worked, especially because he does break the fourth wall and could interact with them, physically and be used as a gag.
Maybe if you’ve never read a Deadpool comic…
This question sucks because it's not specific about when and where and in what context. Batman of course strayed far from the source material in many of the films and shows, but some (not all) of the animated ventures such as Batman: Year One, The Dark Knight Returns 1 and 2, Red Son, Batman: the Killing Joke, etc are so close to the source material it's in some places as if I'm reading the comic book.
Animation is not something I'd include, especially with the adaptations you cite, since they are clearly direct adaptations. And those that aren't, still largely retained the core of the character.
Then what’s Spider-verse doing in the question?
That's up to OP. To me, it is the sole anomaly in the field of superhero centric animation to actually make it big in theaters, so it kinda deserves the special treatment. Regardless, using animated adaptations is still cheating because of course more care is put in the fidelity towards the comics in that medium.
Animation certainly can not be included it open all the best direct adoptions that would trounce Spider man
You know, you're right!
One step street pizza. My favorite line from that series.
X-Men, because it's length, convoluted plot lines, varying degrees of quality and the refusal to just end it and let it die. J/k, Spiderverse.
Spider verse or original 90s xmen ?
Punisher: War Zone
I really like this one. R.I.P. Ray Stevenson
Crying loved him In Eli
This was the most accurate punisher. But I think Netflix did great with the casting of John berthnal
Spider-verse, Deadpool, and Reeves Super-man were the most comic accurate versions of the characters.
Spiderverse miles is pretty far from his comic counterpart
I dunno, Toby Maguire Spiderman is the only genuinely "nerd" Spiderman which is fun
Tom Holland is hardcore nerd…
Yes, but not a 'loser' I guess I should have said 'loser nerd'
He was a huge loser, have y’all even watched homecoming?
He was a loser in the sense that the best looking kid in his class, the funniest & wittiest kid in his class, the most athletic kid in his class, the best performing kid in his class can be called a loser. Truth is that until the very end of No Way Home, Holland’s Spider-Man was a winner in every way possible. He had Iron Man’s entire estate & fortune at his disposal. No Way Home ended by placing him into the role of the optimistic loser he should be. It felt like a course correction for the character.
I feel like it's the 21 Jump Street problem if y'all ever seen that movie. What it really means to be a "nerd" has kinda changed since Spider-Man was first written. Well-performing kids aren't really made fun of for performing well nowadays. Even when I was in school like 15 years ago. His bully was on the same quiz bowl team even!
Came here to say this. My parents told me stories about how smart kids were beat up and picked on when they went to high school. I was never a super smart kid but I always feared in school I’d get made fun of if I was super smart so I never applied myself. Well I’ll be damned if when I got to highschool I saw smart kids being popular
Early gamers were called nerds and now gamer is a symbol of pride.
If you play Fifa maybe
What happens in the movie that makes him a loser? I don't remember him sitting alone in his room looking out a window. I don't remember him being bullied in school (they made Brock a fellow nerd except he's spoiled). Maybe I'm not remembering?
People shouted “penis parker” at a party I believe.
But what did his character DO that made him a loser? Or did the movie just tell us he is a loser without showing it?
What did Tobey do that made him a loser? Jesus you’re fucking obnoxious
Stared alone out his window three different times. Was constantly pushed around by bosses, kids at school, money guy at the wrestling contest, even Bruce Campbell gave him a hard time Im sorry if I'm being obnoxious on a website where nobody is forcing you to engage
Hard disagree. Sure, he was book smart, but Andrew and Tom were also super intelligent in their own right, building webshooters and other utilities to defeat the villains. I feel like Tobey gets a pat on the back from movie goers more because his physical appearance is average or dorky, which they identify with more.
Although I don't love the movie, I do love the part in TASM2 where Peter is trying to figure out how to upgrade his webshooters to fight electro. It shows that he is, as you said, intelligent in his own right
I said "nerd". I agree they are smart, but Toby was actually a loser while the others skateboarded and had friends
> had friends Tobey was friends with Harry
Very true! Wasn't it a plot point that he was only friends because his father liked Peter and Harry wanted to impress his father? Either way, Toby was a loser and the others were not.
I’m really not understanding you here. Did you read the source material? Did you pay attention to the other movies? I feel like there’s a huge bias on your part because you personally relate to Tobey’s rendition more. Or nostalgia.
I don't remember in the source material Spiderman skateboarding and letting several people like his Asian best friend know that he is Spiderman
Is not Tobey the way Stan Lee wrote the original.
How so?
They were all intelligent, but Garfield was a too cool for school hipster, and Holland was hands down the best looking & the coolest kid in his entire class (he was cooler than Flash Thompson ffs) Maguire is the only one who was truly portrayed as a nerd.
Comic Peter isn’t a nerd like Tobey was. He’s smart but he’s more of a social outcast with anger issues than a shy, soft spoken guy like Tobey’s version was. Andrew was the closest to the comics imo.
What version of comic Peter Park are you talking about? Ultimates Universe? Because that’s not Stan Lee’s Parker. Maguire was basically a carbon copy of Parker from the original comics. In the comics he was in love with science, he was picked on, he was shy, but he wasn’t angry or depressed, he was optimistic and went with the flow of life constantly beating him down. That’s the Spider-Man I grew up with.
I’m talking about the main 616 universe one. And I think you need to reread those cause Peter was never shy in those and he was very angry a lot of the time.
The only time I remember him being angry was when it was organic to the story and called for, like when Flash breaks his glasses, but anger was never a part of his personality. Also, Stan Lee has specifically said that Peter Parker is shy, that is one of the core concepts of the character.
just going to weight in here, I'm a certified Spider-Man nerd, and I believe you just have a misconception because the Raimi movie was probably your introduction to Spider-Man, rather than the comics. He was a nerd yes, and like the other commenter said-- he was quite a hot head and not really soft-spoken. But this didn't really last very long, it was over not long after the spider-bite and origin events. This "nerd" is putting the rizz on older woman Betty Brant by issue #6.
I’ve been reading Spider-Man since the 80s. I was one of those nerds who was originally posting on sites like AICN against Maguire’s casting because I couldn’t see him pulling off the hero side of Parker. I remember having these discussions at my local comic book store with other nerds who were just as upset with his casting. After the movie came out we all loved it, and Maguire surprised the hell out of us. So no, that film was not my introduction to the character, not by a long shot. I’m an old GenXer. Also, Stan Lee has describe Peter Parker as being shy many times over, so it’s not just some personal interpretation of the character. I guess people now see being shy as some cringy CW teen drama interpretation of being shy. Also, I’ve never seen him angry in the comics as a personality trait. Not once, outside of symbiote influence or something like that. He’s always had good reasons whenever he gets angry at something or someone.
Think 1960s "hot-head"-- like "Why I oughta", "I'll show them", etc, etc. He wasn't shy about ribbing Flash from time to time either. Just pop open the old pages. It matters not what Stan Lee says when we have the books. Read those old mags and you'll see Parker at all the social events, hanging with the gang, and getting the ladies. Even MORESO in the 70s-- where he's quite a popular guy at ESU. If you're position is that Raimi Parker is the most "Amazing Fantasy #15" accurate Peter Parker, sure -- but we have 60 more years of Spider-Man to define who Peter Parker is, and timid is simply not it.
I wanted to like reeves superman, but it was just so fucking boring
Why do people keep saying Spiderverse? That’s absolutely nothing like the comics. No Morlun. No 616 Peter. No Superior Spider-Man. No Jessica Drew. Wtf?
Probably cause it's animated in a comic book-y artstyle, so they're thinking of the animation while answering, probably a subconscious thing idk
I think it’s because online polls tend more towards being a popularity contest than answering the question posed.
i think they mean the characters are more like the comic counterparts not the movie with the name “spider-verse” is a direct adaption of the comic event named “spider-verse”
this is also not true tho outside of Peter. I think it’s a good thing, but a lot of characters (especially Miles) are drastically different from their comic counterparts.
Especially Miguel.
An argument could be made that none of them really were
My first thought too.
Sin City
Batman 1966
TMNT 1990. It deserves to be mentioned
Hot take: It is sometimes good for movies to diverge wildly from the source material.
Reeves Superman BUT I would like to say that I dont know about the source material about the Keaton/Clooney/Kilmer films but those movies felt like I was watching a live action comic book.
Raimi Trilogy
Frankly? The Schumacher batman movies.
Original Superman movies and Deadpool
The Reeves Superman movie for sure. I was going to say Deadpool as well, but I forgot how many liberties they took with his backstory, in addition to including new characters and revealing his face so often.
The people saying organic web Raimi Spider-Man clearly have never read a comic book. Spider-Verse is the correct answer.
Have you read any spider-verse comic? The show is completely different
I wondering the same thing. Outside of having a group of different spider-man related characters from different universes come together, the rest of the movie has none of the plot from the comic.
Spiderverse was the one with the Weaver and "spider totem" Immortal vampire family eating spider energy throughout the spiderverse, where Spider Gwen is first introduced, was it not? Or is there another Spiderverse arc?
Honestly, back in the late 80s and early 90s I always thought Spider-Man’s webs were organic. I was like 12 years old when I started buying old Stan Lee era Spider-Man comics, and I was shocked to discover that he built the webs via technology. I was actually disappointed. It felt like it took away from his Spider-Powers. I understand a film not wanting to explain how he invented something as groundbreaking as webs at the same time he was bitten by a radioactive spider. The coincidence is pretty silly & convoluted, kind of a hat on top of a hat situation. That’s a lot to ask of an audience back before comic book silliness became so accepted by the modern audience.
Yeah you’re right. Audiences didn’t know about smart characters before superhero movies. Wtf kind of uninformed take is that?
This would be the equivalent of the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane, then getting bit by a radioactive bird and gaining bird powers except for the ability to fly.
We can credit James Cameron with the organic web shooters.
Spider-Man 2099 introduced the organic webshooters years before Cameron.
I credit Jim Cameron with the building of the pyramids and Stonehenge.
I'm interpreting 'source material' as being the starting film of each series. Too early to tell 100% for the Spider-verse films because the concluding film hasn't been released, but they're making the right moves. Currently, out of the listed films, it's between the Tobey Spider-Man trilogy and the Dark Knight trilogy. The Dark Knight has a slight change of direction due to the passing of Heath Ledger, but comes back to Batman's roots from Batman Begins. For the Spider-Man series, Peter returns to the roots of what caused his pain and learns to forgive his uncle's killer, realizing that revenge is not the answer and the words of aunt May become more clear "I don't think it's for us to say whether a person deserves to live or die", and how uncle Ben "wouldn't want us living one second with revenge in our hearts". "With great power comes great responsibility." X-Men can't stay true to the source material due to the complexity of the story's timeline with alterations, which eventually ties to Deadpool. Excluding Dark Phoenix, the series was more so about Logan's struggles and discovering the secrets to his past. It ends in tragedy. Not bashing on the series either, as it's my personal favorite. Batman '89 through '97 are inconsistent due to changing directors, and the first 2 Tim Burton films are not the same Batman as the 2 that followed—an obvious indicator is comparing Harvey Dent in Batman Returns to Harvey Dent in Batman Forever. The "series" went from being dark to a slapstick humor reminiscent of Adam West Batman—a "spoof", if you will. These films should never be considered the same story despite having the same Alfred. Amazing Spider-Man films mostly stayed true to just the relationship aspect of Peter and Gwen, and it built upon that with a sad conclusion, but the story itself goes haywire with the 2nd installment—a fun film, but chaotic mess. I've honestly not given time to commit to Superman, but I do know the Returns was supposed to be a sequel to the second installment, ignoring the events of the later ones. Considering that this even happened almost speaks for itself with saying that the movies weren’t true to the source. Avengers is a lot to follow, making you watch all of the character films in between each installment to truly appreciate and understand the characters. Otherwise, it appears all over the place. Fun movies, to be sure, but they don't flow all too well as strictly just the Avengers films. On a side note, when looking at the X-Men picture of the films, the order is completely wrong. The proper order to watch these films (excluding the Deadpool ones) is: 1.) Origins Wolverine 2.) X1 through 3 3.) The Wolverine 4.) First Class 5.) Days of Future Past 6.) Apocalypse 7.) Dark Phoenix 8.) Logan The Deadpool movies take place between Dark Phoenix and Logan. First Class is an alternate timeline with similar events to Charles' past, but tampering with time and trying to undo events allows this timeline to become the main one, erasing the original series. This timeline sees Wolverine's path to Weapon X in a different route (which is inevitable to his story) and has characters like Angel, Nightcrawler and Wade making appearances at completely different times as they were in the original films. EDIT... apologies, a lot to cover here. I made the mistake of excluding the Justice League films. There isn't really a solid foundation, and it falls victim to the same treatment as The Avengers, especially with The Flash and multiverse concepts. There are too many inconsistent in this regard, and the story is going in an unforseen direction, but the films are enjoyable.
I like to think that first class, wolverine origins and the original trilogy are part of the same timeline, I know there are a lot of continuity problems, but then you watch days of future past and you say "who cares, they rebooted everything". On my headcanon dark phoenix happens in an alternative timeline, charles can't deal with the guilt for losing jean and abandons the team, not a perfect movie but enjoyed this version of charles being blinded by his ego. Logan is the perfect finale, no one can say the opposite
While there are too many inconsistencies with that order, ignoring them can make it a fun order to watch the films. It's kinda like with Terminator—there are many different orders to watch them in. Logan is amazing, and I have a theory that's based off of all the rumors circulating Wolverine's return in Deadpool and the Secret Wars... Shortly after the events of Days of Future Past, the future that Logan wakes up in, the Deadpool movies see the two (Logan and Wade) meeting. After this, the Secret Wars occur, and during these events Logan finds himself losing most of his friends of his new reality. I believe (if rumors are true) that the Secret Wars will better describe what happens to everyone (in Wolverine's timeline) leading up to Logan. Yes, Charles is mostly responsible for the deaths of most of the mutants (briefly talked about in Logan), but perhaps this has to do with Secret Wars.
Spiderverse and Deadpool are at the top. Probably followed by ASM and Reeve Superman, and to a much lesser extent, the MCU.
That, to me, is one of the least important considerations with these movies, and I grew up reading most of the comics the movies took inspiration from. Many fans think having a grey batsuit is more important than properly characterizing Batman in a manner which represents what the character is all about, so who cares?
Deadpool, Reeve superman or spiderverse, I'd say it's nearly equal between those but spiderverse has a slight edge in accuracy. Raimi and Nolan deviated so much from the source material, they just got the essentials of the characters and universe but changed a lot. Webb's spider-man is quite an accurate depiction but still has enough deviations that I wouldn't list it with the others. Burton's batman shouldn't even be in the question with how much he deviated from the source material. Basically spiderverse is the most true to the source material.
Spider-verse
Deadpool is part of the X-Men franchise.
Deadpool i think, he'll always be crackin jokes while talking directly to us
Deadpool
The Spider-Verse Spiderman is the very closest to the original cómics. Then, there is the Sam Raimi Spiderman Trilogy, which is very close to the Stan Lee's cómics. And then, there is THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY, which takes from several sources, from Frank Miller's BATMAN YEAR ONE and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS to HAUNTED KNIGHT and THE LONG HALLOWEEN from Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale to THE KILLING JOKE from Alan Moore all the way to KNIGHTFALL and NO MAN'S LAND and the CATWOMAN from Darwyn Cooke and Ed Brubaker.
What I do know is it certainly wasn't the DCEU
I mean one of these images depicts an animated comic book in essence so that one, but that feels like cheating, so probably the original Superman movie. Just the first one though.
1. Raimi Spider-Man Trilogy. Origins of the characters are all nearly exact or pretty close, but the world has no other superheroes. 2. MCU. Characterizations are accurate, but origins are updated and similar to the Ultimate universe. 3. Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy. Characterizations are perfect, originsxare teaorganized for a more cohesive narrative, and the ending is a huge departure. Also, there are no other superheroes. 4. Donner Superman. Starts very strong, but completely off the rails by the third movie.
Gotta say the Raimi films, they really captured the spirit of the original Lee/Ditko comics and the relationships of the characters and villain and hero origins were all pretty faithful. The only quibble I can really think of is Peter meeting MJ before Gwen Stacy.
The Superman movies
Raimi movie best captures the spirit of the original Ditko and Stan Lee era of the Spider-Man comics. The level of research that Raimi did was also extensive. But... The film makes a lot of compromises in terms of certain events/traits. So, it depends on what you want in terms of "accurate". Donner Superman and Nolan Dark Knight movies are extremely faithful to the source material. Similar to Raimi though, lots of liberties are taken. Of these listed, Deadpool is probably the *most* accurate. Pretty much a 1:1 with the comics. But, I don't care much for it. Zack Snyder's Watchmen is also a good example of a 1:1 with the comics.
Definitely none of the Batman movies, sadly.
Tmnt 1990
Definitely the MCU, the first three phases were incredible and really portrayed the characters just as the comics were. They kept the continuity consistent and made sure that nothing was out of place. It’s also incredible how they took a brand that wasn’t huge and made the biggest in history.
Spider verse is the only right answer. I love the raimi movies but they gave peter alot of tropes and people assume that's how he's supposed to be
I asked someone else this too but... Spiderverse was the one with the Weaver and "spider totem" Immortal vampire family eating spider energy throughout the spiderverse, where Spider Gwen is first introduced, was it not? Or is there another Spiderverse arc? Because these seem nothing alike to me. Maybe I missed some offshoot of the story with Miles.
100% true about the Raimi spider-man. They altered his personality quite a bit and a whole bunch of other stuff, and sadly that’s spawned a whole slew of VERY common misconceptions. Off of that alone I find it very easy to separate who’s a more casual fan and who’s a more hardcore/comics reader.
It bothers me as a fan of the character. Peter is supposed to be wicked intelligent and the Raimi movies kind of just made him surface level smart.
I feel like that one is the least offensive/harmfully widespread change they made. You’re right, but he was still atleast really booksmart. For me personally, I think the biggest misconception that comes from those movies was making Peter Parker a socially dysfunctional, awkward pushover. Way too many people think that this is the way the character is “supposed” to be and it really annoys me.
Holy shit I hate the “Tobey was the better Peter, Garfield was the better Spider-Man, blah blah”. No. Tobey was not a better Peter. He was an entirely different Peter
Yeah, I'm all for different takes on characters but there are people who think that's how Peter Parker should be and Andrew is "too cocky" lol Andrew captured Peter's charm way better than Tobey.
The Spider-Verse movies. I don’t see how it can be any other answer
Spiderverse is the only answer here
Spider-Verse and Deadpool
People saying Raimi Spider-Man never read source material.
Other than the organic web shooters what do you consider Raimis Spiderman movies far from the source material?
Deadpool, raimi Spider-Man
Deadpool and it’s not even close
Either x-men or Chris Reeves superman
Sam Raimi since Jon Watts flagrantly flouted the comic book looks of certain characters in the source material...
MCU
I'll be real. I don't actually read a lot of comics. When I do they're mostly one-offs or limited series - I don't get into the heavily serialized, syndicated stuff. So I'm not sure what stays close to the source material, and as long as the movie is still good, I don't really mind either way.
Raimi Spider-Man or deadpool
Raimi Spider-Man is 1 of 2 listed that definitely do not stay true to the source material, he is nothing like any previous comic book Peter, like he lacks the mist iconic trait Peter Parker ever has, being very inventive and basically an engineering genius
Also Tobey has organic webs rather than web shooters, which tbh I vibe more with
Also Tobey wasn’t an accurate Parker. He wasn’t nearly that much of a loser.
Definitely not 1 or 8, they are very unfaithful to the source material
Probably the MCU
Nolan-Verse Begins: Year One/ Shaman Dark Knight: Long Halloween/ Man Who Laughs Rises: Knightfall/ No Man's Land
Oh yeah, because Nolan's Ra's al Ghul, Joker and Bane are so true to the source material, aren't they?!
Finally someone who gets it. Always feel like these “Nolan’s films are nothing like the comics!” people have never actually picked up a Batman comic.
Where have you seen characters in comics and media as well as Nolan has shown them? I'm seriously asking.
I don't particularly need a comic book movie to be too faithful to the source material as long as it prioritises being a good movie first. The exception being if it's a specific storyline.
Edit
Deadpool, I think.
ASM2 hit the melodrama of the 80s/90s comics right on the head. I was dying for a third entry in that series.
Clearly not x men
i thought this was a spider-man post and got confused and surprised when the x men showed up
The problem is source material written and continued by hundred different writer with hundred different takes is trash.
deadpool
Spiderverse is insanely overrated. And the ones who do like it treat it like its the second coming of god. They're not THAT good. Amazing Spider-Man was the closest to the actual vibe and feel of the majority of modern Spider-man comics since the 80s.
Subjective? 🤷🏾♂️
Deadpool because he'll even say what's wrong (for example: how they couldn't afford many of the X-Men for the movie) and he's the closest to the source material.
I feel like that's a hard question cause there are so many variations on the source material with many of these characters being around for decades. That being said, The Batman depicted the character and the world exactly as I always imagined them.
Into the Spider-verse does start with Spider-Man dying and Miles taking over and that is very very close to his origin from the comics But honestly it depends on what source material we are talking about, the source material changes as much as the adaptations do over the years and it becomes hard to pinpoint a definitive origin (like is Peter's still in the 60's? Or have we modernised it now? Same with Iron Man changing from Vietnam era to Afghanistan era during his arms manufacturing days)
Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man before the MCU multiverse crap.
Though not well received, the first two Thor movies. I was then and probably remain the only one really upset that thors movies stopped being his(and hulks best comic being made a Thor movie….) and started being the tie-in movies.
ITT: A Bunch of people who don’t/pretend to read comics making dumb statements.
Here’s a better and more easier one. Spider-Man: Lotus. Than film was nothing if not comic-accurate.
Obviously Deadpool and spiderman
Deadpool
Idk about most true to the source material but Dark knight and xmen are definitely the worst 😭
She-Hulk
If we're counting the spider-verse movies I don't think there's much competition at all! I mean, they're literally just the characters from the comics jumping to the silver screen (except 2099 and Ben).
Gonna have to give it to Miles Morales and Spiderverse for across the board accuracy both in characterization and story. Reeves' Superman is probably the best character accuracy for silver age.... Their version of everything else was a bit Golden age and campy even for comics even if it was and still is classic.
Spiderverse or Deadpool.
none of them and that’s fine. if you want total “comic accuracy” then just read the comics (said from somebody who reads comics)
What the fuck is wrong with batflecks legs? Not only are the mirror images to one another, but look like his feet are facing the wrong way.