Spider-Man comics like the Raimi films?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Squire

Banned
So I just re-watched the first two Spider-Man films directed by Sam Raimi last night. I still think they're as amazing as they were when I first saw them as a kid. Having learned a little about what really makes a quality film since then, I'm doubly impressed. I love the scripts, the fights, the cinematography, and the characterization. Of Peter in particular.

My question is: Are there any Spider-Man comic series that are similar in tone and style (as similar as a comic can be to a film that is) to Sam Raimi's movies?
 
Hard question. Can't think of any Spider-Man book in the recent decade that fits that description. Will recommend Ultimate Spider-Man however if you're willing to see an updated Spider-Man origin story with plenty of humor and consistent quality throughout.
 
idk

I find it interesting how a lot of people (myself included) think of the first raimi Spider-Man as lighthearted now when i remember there being talk of how dark it got at times. The green goblin attacking aunt may and the final fight were pretty brutal. Now though, the light-hearted silliness stands out more
 
Not really. You'd have to reach a bit far back but I don't think you'll find any books where Spider-Man is like Tobey's.
 
There's this one comic where Spider Man has organic web shooters...
after being turned into a giant spider and giving birth to himself.
 
Overall, Raimi captures allot of the original ASM comics except for Peter/Spidey himself.

Raimi's Aunt May, Uncle Ben, JJJ, Norman Osborn, Sandman are SPOT ON.

but Raimi's Spidey/Peter is off. Tobey is too emo.

Garfield is the beter Spidey/Tobey but the villains and side characters in the Webb ASM movies are off.
 
Overall, Raimi captures allot of the original ASM comics except for Peter/Spidey himself.

Raimi's Aunt May, Uncle Ben, JJJ, Norma Osborn, Sandman are SPOT ON.

but Raimi's Spidey/Peter is off. Tobey is too emo

Sandman is a psycho in ASM, Raimi didn't understand him at all imo.
 
Overall, Raimi captures allot of the original ASM comics except for Peter/Spidey himself.

Raimi's Aunt May, Uncle Ben, JJJ, Norman Osborn, Sandman are SPOT ON.

but Raimi's Spidey/Peter is off. Tobey is too emo.

Garfield is the beter Spidey/Tobey but the villains and side characters in the Webb ASM movies are off.



I agree with the above, the first 3 spidermans get some of the tone of the supporting cast right, but Spiderman him self is terrible, flat and just not anything like the comics.

The new ASM films do a great job on Spidy/Peter (IMO) and remake gwen into the perfect version of her (seriously did anyone give a damn about gwen till these films?) But they get the supporting cast wrong.

Personally, I like ASM WAY better than the first 3 spiderman films. I honestly really enjoyed them, felt they were better done, and LOVED the chemistry between Garfield and Stone.
 
Overall, Raimi captures allot of the original ASM comics except for Peter/Spidey himself.

Raimi's Aunt May, Uncle Ben, JJJ, Norman Osborn, Sandman are SPOT ON.

but Raimi's Spidey/Peter is off. Tobey is too emo.

Garfield is the beter Spidey/Tobey but the villains and side characters in the Webb ASM movies are off.

To be fair, most of the characters in ASM are based off of Ultimate Spiderman.
 
Definitely the old school Stan Lee era Spider-Man comics. I think the Raimi movies are even in line with the 60s Peter Parker - one thing that there was no shortage of were really hammy, melodramatic inner monologues and narrations about his life.

One of the reasons I love the Raimi movies - that style of Spider-Man has always been my favorite.
 
I feel like the Spectacular Spider-Man tv show takes a lot of ques from Raimi's movies, but that's a cartoon.

edit: you should probably watch the 60s technicolor cartoon and the 96 series too if you're going to watch spider-man cartoons that are similar to the Raimi movies ;P
 
Overall, Raimi captures allot of the original ASM comics except for Peter/Spidey himself.

Raimi's Aunt May, Uncle Ben, JJJ, Norman Osborn, Sandman are SPOT ON.

but Raimi's Spidey/Peter is off. Tobey is too emo.

Garfield is the beter Spidey/Tobey but the villains and side characters in the Webb ASM movies are off.

Spot-on. And oh, Emma Stone is a much better Gwen Stacy than Bryce Howard-Dallas.
 
Definitely the old school Stan Lee era Spider-Man comics. I think the Raimi movies are even in line with the 60s Peter Parker - one thing that there was no shortage of were really hammy, melodramatic inner monologues and narrations about his life.

One of the reasons I love the Raimi movies - that style of Spider-Man has always been my favorite.

Same here. I see the complaints, but I love Peter that way.
 
to me, this is the real electro:
Electro.png
 
Raimi films felt more like old school Spidey in the cheese factor. Even in the older stuff Spidey was not a clown and didn't wisecrack that much.
 
There's this one comic where Spider Man has organic web shooters...
after being turned into a giant spider and giving birth to himself.

I know comics purists hate them, but I actually liked the organic web shooters compared to the mechanical ones from the comics.
 
Yeah, shit sucks

Nah, he's way better now rather than being a chump in the olde issues.

Damn right. And I want Shocker on screen in his good ole costume too.

http://i.imgur.com/x4V1t45l.jpg[IMG]

But back to the OP, the 60s and 70s era Spidey stuff is more in line with the tone of the Raimi films. The Lee and Ditko era is great, but so is the Romita Sr. era.[/QUOTE]

Would pay good money to see this play out on screen.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5rQL1US.jpg
 
I've been reading through the silver age Amazing Spider-Man stuff and it's pretty spot on with the Raimi films. I think that would be ASM #1-120.
 
And they didn't tie into his origin of becoming Spidey with all this destiny bullshit, whatever that the new movie did. Ugh.
Yeah because Peters CIA parents teaming up with Wolverine and fighting off the Red Skull is soooooooo much better. It's the same destiny bullshit where he's destined to be a hero like them.
 
Ultimate Peter died protecting his loved ones.

616 Peter sold his marriage and unborn child to the devil. He also punched a pregnant Mary Jane during the Clone Saga.

Who's the real asshole?

..the writers?
 
Ultimate Peter died protecting his loved ones.

616 Peter sold his marriage and unborn child to the devil. He also punched a pregnant Mary Jane during the Clone Saga.

Who's the real asshole?

Marvel. They been shitting on Spider-man since I was a kid in the 90's, the clone saga still burns but they keep trying again and again to take a dump on Peter. I know Spider-man is all about perseverance and hardship, but good god, he can't catch a break.
 
For all of the problems with OMD, killing the whole marriage, teacher, and MJ bullshit was probably the best thing to happen to Spider-Man in a long time.
 
For all of the problems with OMD, killing the whole marriage, teacher, and MJ bullshit was probably the best thing to happen to Spider-Man in a long time.
Yeah, now we have riveting tales of everyone in New York getting spider powers and Doc Ock pretending to be Spider-Man for a year
 
Yeah, now we have riveting tales of everyone in New York getting spider powers and Doc Ock pretending to be Spider-Man for a year

Well yeah. Those as well as The Gauntlet and Grim Hunt were honestly more entertaining stories than what we got prior.
 
For all of the problems with OMD, killing the whole marriage, teacher, and MJ bullshit was probably the best thing to happen to Spider-Man in a long time.

I dont agree with this. We got robbed of mayday in the 616.

And i dont see plotlines(outside the carlie stuff, but even then she could have been added in the plot somewhere) that couldnt have been done without omd.
 
Yeah because Peters CIA parents teaming up with Wolverine and fighting off the Red Skull is soooooooo much better. It's the same destiny bullshit where he's destined to be a hero like them.

the CIA storyline was only empshized in detail in 1992, that is like 30 year AFTER Spider-Man's creation
 
the CIA storyline was only empshized in detail in 1992, that is like 30 year AFTER Spider-Man's creation
What's your point? What difference does that make? That the Ultimate stuff happened sooner? Would you be happier if they went into Ulimate Peters parents origins in 2031 then?

They're both dumb ridiculous origins that make Peter look too special.
 
I like the original trilogy (well, 1 and 2) a lot, but they've aged a bit poorly (although 2 still is awesome).

The new ASM movies, while I think are great, kind of really retread a lot of ideas without it being too different, aside from nailing the character more. It makes me wonder how opinion would change if ASM were the first SPider-man to be on modern cinema.

It's funny, Gwen in the new movies is so infinitely better than Mary Jane in the old, it makes MJ look like nothing more than a damsel in distress for those films - no part to really play other than a point of infatuation. In ASM movies, there's some real chemistry happening, so much so that any introduction of an MJ character to that series has to meet a REAL high bar or it will fail miserably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom