WHY I DIDN'T LIKE THE SPIDER-MAN MOVIES
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- The Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy are some of the most beloved superhero movies of all time.
People love seeing The Green Goblin , Doctor Octopus ( Doc Ock ) , Venom , and The Sandman battle with your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.
They love watching Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson interact.
... So of course, Vee takes some issue with them.
#SpiderMan #SpiderManNoWayHome #TobeyMaguire
SUBSCRIBE AND CLICK THAT BELL TO BE NOTIFIED
LINKS, LINKS, AND MORE LINKS
JOIN THE PATREON AND BECOME A CERTIFIED VEEGENERATE - / sijw
TIP JAR- PayPal.me/VeeInfuso
GET A CAMEO - www.cameo.com/....
JOIN ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER - / veeinfuso
JOIN THE DISCORD - / discord
BACK UP UA-cam CHANNEL - www.youtube.co....
EMAIL ME @ VeeInfusoManagement@gmail.com
Every Rami fan right now: "I'm gonna put some dirt in your eye!"
I was gonna comment that.
Yeah, why not? xd.
Teehee funny.
I'm more of a Amazing spiderman than Rami fan as I got older but I felt just like that reading the title 😂😂
@@theoutsiderjess1869 ¿?
Vee infuso: "Just Give Me A Chance"
What about my uncle did you give him a chance!?!
I literally heard the scene in my head when he said that XD
Uncle Ben's death wasn't the biggest tragedy in these films, it was Harry getting sidelined in 3 because the studio pushed for Venom to be included
Yeah James franco could have been the perfect Goblin Jr I never really like the Harry Osborn in Amazing spiderman 2 even though he did okay
@@theoutsiderjess1869 Same. As mediocre as Franco's Goblin design was, I still prefer it to the TASM 2 design. At least I can look at the former without getting disgusted and wondering what the fuck Sony were thinking.
Same with sandman
@@Wortwort-Spooderbat Indeed. He and Harry should've been the villains.
In raimi's defense I dont think he had a choice with venom
Yh man he was gonna save venom for the 4th film
Yeah he wanted to focus on Sand Man but Avi Arad forced him to including Venom because is his favorite character 🤦♂️
@@TomoyaOkazaki2 no lizard was for 4th. It was clear peters physics teacher was going to be him
@@Spongebrain97 Not Ari Aster man, Avi Arad.
@@RIME387 haha my bad. Ari Aster is actually good at his work
Doc Ock wasn't like the comics, but I think it's a perfect example of taking creatine liberties and inspiration to make their own thing that works. And honestly in the confines of a film it probably works better than trying to do an accurate adaptation.
Yeah I think in comics doc ock is more evil but I like this one is not evil but he’s mind controlled and misunderstood
Ah yes, creatine liberties
If Ock ever appeared in MTVs spider man series on the chance it gets a revival I think he would be closer to his comic counterpart imo.
Recently I saw an interview with Tom Welling explaining why Smallville hired him when he was 25 to portray a teenager, he said "teenagers don't want to see teenagers on television, the want to see who they want to be"
So I get why Spider-Man and every other movie/show does it, but you're right, it's awkwardly noticeable in Spider-Man.
Another great example of someone who captured the counterpart of a superhero alias. Smallville made me fall in love with Superman’s story and Wellings performance is a huge reason why.
That isn't why they do it, dumbass. They do it to get around labour and Sexuality laws, dumbass. Minors have more restrictions, dipshit.
@@scottchaison1001 Lol what are you on about? My comment had nothing to do with Spider-Man, and my comment was a compliment…
@Shawn Nah, don't say stupid things, there is nothing wrong with that and it looks good on Spider-Man xd.
@@nehemiahbarnes-williams Lol, excuse me, I made the wrong comment, I wanted to reply to Shawn.
I get what you're saying dude but the whole "it's not as comic accurate" bit just rings hallow because most people still liked it the way that it was. Spiderman creates his own web shooters, Doc Oc is a bad person, and Spiderman is more quippy in the comics. We all acknowledge that but Sam Rami made the changes work for his movies. The main thing that his version captures is who Spiderman is supposed to be. Which is a relatable average nerd on the street who gets pushed around by bullies and society but has a good heart and wants to do the right thing. Those are elements that later versions of the character have lacked in some capacity which is why people still look back on the Rami films with more fondness
And Sam Raimi kinda gets how to do an adaptation, changes are needed but you need to keep the essence of the concept and characters. Nobody wants a 1:1 CMB, maybe the closest you can get to a 1:1 adaptation, but changes sometimes are needed, like not having the big monster at the end of Watchmen and replacing it with something that has certain value and presence on the main story (that being Dr. Manhattan and his powers)
Wow I've never seen a sam rami fan say anything like this, usually they complain about the mcu spiderman and and Andrew comic inaccuracies but ignores the Rami trilogies inaccuracies, thanks for not being a hypocrite
This ☝️
@@chadcostello1407 Yeah I think that no version is going to be 100% comic accurate but it doesnt matter as long as the character on the screen embodies their comic book counterparts.
@@Spongebrain97 agreed
You’re actually speaking facts about the mugging scene.
Yeah, fr
Yeah, never thought about it until this video. But original Peter almost literally could not ignore someone in need. It just wasn’t in his nature.
i think if they had removed that scene and keep the burning building scene, it would've worked well to show Peter needs to be spiderman
@@SushiPanda04 exactly
Yo
Personally I loved raimi but each to their own
I believe the saying is “to each their own”
I love raimi Spider-Man movies too
@@mcocfrog188 Both are correct and widely used.
@@RbkARI ok
Wow
I've never interpreted the ending of Spider-Man 3 as them getting back together. I've always seen it as a sad, slow, final dance. They might keep in touch, but what they had is over now. He hurt her, and that was only the feather on the stack of their issues. It never even occurred to me that it was meant to convey them getting back in a relationship.
I agree
Exactly!
They got back together
You are fucking stupid. They got back together.
Nah they got back together.
Reading this comment section... all I can think of is...
"In spite of everything you've ever done for them... eventually they will hate you"
Everyone pissed off, don’t worry I’m also making a video about all the things I liked from the Series
*insert line from the Trilogy by a salty Raimi fanboy who's butthurt by someone's unpopular opinion*
With great Power (To Trigger Marvel Fanatics) comes with great Responsibility. 😅
Honestly ignore those guys man. Your opinion is your opinion and nothing can change that. You are finally giving everything who dislikes the rami movies a voice. Have a good one.
"That's a cute outfit. Did your husband give it to you?"
First of all you haven't "done" anything for your audience you garden gnome
While I love the movies more than you seem to, the things you pointed out about them always bothered me as well. Nothing will ever top the 90's cartoon and the The Spectacular Spider-Man for me, in terms of portrayal on-screen.
Agreed
Well these movies are based off TAS and Spectacular is based of theses movies
When I see these kind of videos I always say:
When you come to like or love something you tend to Ignore their flaws. You appreciate them not because of their flaws but because of their merits.
Like in real life, you friend might have ten flaws but you don't trash them, you like them because of their good qualities.
For everything that these movies got wrong, they got a hundred more right.
Vee Infuso: I didn't like the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies.
Me: I missed the part where that's my problem.
“They’re literally the most toxic couple I have ever seen.”
Joker and Harley Quinn: Hold my beer
Yeah, but they’re SUPPOSED to be toxic.
Very true bro
Reed Richards and Sue Storm.
Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne
Actually, Peter Parker himself started becoming more confident when out of costume, which caused Liz Allen to develop a one-sided crush on him. The character was pretty confrontational both as Peter and Spider-Man and only mellowed out after the Ditko era ended. It’s kind of hilarious how people (both in-universe and out) only ASSUMED Peter was a weak loser. A running joke I’ll never forget is Aunt May saying something like, “Oh, it’s a good thing Peter isn’t here; the poor boy would have fainted at the sight of this!” Only for the next panel to show Peter mentally insulting the situation before even changing into costume. The guy was a bit of a firecracker in the Ditko era and I really wish an adaptation took advantage of that rather than only pulling from the Ultimate comics.
Andrew Garfield took that aspect, tbh. I mean, that basketball scene is a perfect example.
So you dislike the Dark Knight trilogy and now you don't like Raimi's swingy-boy? Do you even like movies at all?
Im with him i dont like em either
@Dirk Platinum Me too
Both trilogies are overrated to be honest.
@@monicalewis7572 Tobey was in better films than Andrew so it's not hard to see why.
@@madddoggnogood1491 you don't like high-level capeshit filmmaking, gotcha.
I dare you to do a Why I didn't like the Attitude Era next.
I feel like that'd be easy, to be honest.
Wrestletalk already did a nice breakdown about why attitude era is not that good
@@bijikedelai they're idiots though
Attitude Era wasn't that great
Attitude era was the best.
Most of these criticisms are about the lacking of comic book accuracy, which is a matter of preference more than real criticisms about the quality of these movies; specially when these capture the essence of the character perfectly fine (perhaps the real offender here is the MJ relationship, I can agree to that).
I think a lot of people don't get that you can't go 1:1 from comic to movie because they are different mediums and artforms with different languages, hence why when you try to go full accuracy you can get a movie like Watchmen that visually speaking is the same as the comics but the message and themes come off as totally different.
By right the point of the video is why HE doesn’t love these movies, so it was always about preference
The issue has never been about comic accuracy. The issue is Raimi-tards keep insisting that this shitshow is how Spider-Man is supposed to be. FUCKING READ A DITKO COMIC, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!! Sorry, I got real angry there.
MJ: "You're taller than you look"
Peter: "I hunch"
*Music swells*
"don't"
There should've been some terrible joke after that, like how it would be in the MCU.
@CYB3R2K30
No, nothing's wrong with it. It's a sweet moment where Peter opens up about his insecurities, and MJ consoles him by encouraging Peter to just be himself. It's a neat moment of bonding between two friends that moment absolutely deserves some flowery music.
My point was that anyone can make anything seem cheesy by introducing it out of context.
@@antona.8659 you're acting like these scenes weren't cringe on their own
@@keemerthanever1942 sweet teenage romance BS vs. Jokes about orgies or anuses like in Thor Schkocknarok. Guess which I'll pick.
"I consider Spiderman 2 to be the best comic film of all time.
But as adults you and I can disagree and be entitled to our own respective opinion."
I say that each time.
It’s overrated
@@JohnSmith-nu4ix no
Lol of all time? What a joke.
@@randybobandy9828 it’s not the best all time but it’s up there
I personally have to say, best live action Stan alone, no crossover movie, is probably the first super man movie, is not the best, it's definitely a good one
I still absolutely love these movies, but they've never been my absolute _favorite_ interpretation of Spider-Man. They're behind Insomniac, Spectacular and the 90s show for me, in that particular order.
Spectacular and 90s are better interpretations overall than insomniac
@@santana8797 It's very close for me, I could probably change the order around depending on the day, but those are my definitive top 3.
@@santana8797 Eh. PS4 is a unique but accurate representation of Spider-Man, and I personally like how they made him older and more experienced also (Having been Spider-Man for a total of 8 years now). So, I can understand Insomniacs representation of the character at present. He’s prolly #2 for me, cause Spectacular Spider-Man is just…VERY HARD TO BEAT IMO.
I agree about Spectacular and Insomniac but I really don't think the 90s show holds up well at all.
@@dkamphaus43 Well, that's your opinion and I respect it, but I think it holds up very well.
Aside from Spiderman 3, the Sam Raimi trilogy is pretty solid. Granted I also grew up watching the trilogy hence why I’m kinda biased towards them.
Edit: You do bring up a valid point about Raimi’s Spiderman not whipping out quips in typical Spidey fashion. At least, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland said a few quips here and there whenever they played Spiderman. Peter and MJ’s relationship was pretty toxic in the trilogy too.
The argument about quips honestly Im tired of hearing. The whole point of Spiderman is that he is a poor kid with a good heart that struggles and gets pushed around by society but he still tries to protect it. Thats it and both Spiderman 1 and 2 portray that. Especially in 2 when the main plot line is Peter's life sucking so hard that he even quits being Spiderman
@@Spongebrain97 Exactly why spiderman 2 has yet to be topped the MCU spiderman is literally the most privileged spiderman we've seen yet. The best modern takes on spiderman are the ps4 version or spider verse.
He does quip, but not as much as the next Spider-Men and he has a dry delivery, kinda like The Naked Gun, where there's slapstick comedy and deadpan delivery of the lines
Spider-Man 3 is the best one watch out
@@dantemitsoyu977 not the best, but I don't really see that movie working as good with the themes without one of the three villains, maybe with the previous idea of gwen being the damisel in distress and some other changes to the theatrical cut, but although it's messy and far from perfect, I appreciate it as the last installment with that theme
This is why I ALWAYS recommend the Spectacular Spider-Man animated series to anyone who wants to get into Spider-Man.
Same here
It's my favorite spider man show
I would probably recommend Ultimate Spider-Man
@@jennifernelson7413 no
I would be a troll and recommend amazing spiderman 2
lets be real I get annoyed by people who say he didn't do quips. Yet everyone can quote them and have "memed" them. I never see anyone use any other Spider-Man quips from any other Movie or Shows with the exception of one line from Infinity war "Mr Stark I don't feel so good" hell even comics barely get quoted Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is the most quoted Spider-Man films if not most quoted Super hero films.
I haven’t watched this movie in a while can you give me ONE that he says
@@Galvatronover I'll give you a few "I Missed The Part Where That's My Problem" and "That's A Cute Outfit, Did Your Husband Give It To You?" and "Here's your Change!" "Look At Little Goblin JR.... Gonna Cry?" Here is one that is often over looked. "Uncle ben: How are you doing buddy how was the field trip. Peter: I don't feel well I'm gonna go to sleep. Aunt May: You won't have a bite? Peter: No Thanks, I had a bite."
@@OfficialSoraOkami those aren't quips though, just memed lines
Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man had the best quip imo “oh no! you found my one weakness small knives!”
I don’t know why but “seeya chump” makes me laugh a little
I cannot physically hold any laughter when he says “see ya chump”
@@MerlynwestVII exactly it’s just funny
Pack your things...get out of my building.
You're fired!
That was a great intro, Pup.
Here's a list of as many differences form the comics that I can think of
- Peter had no friends in High school, he didn't meet Harry and Gwen until College.
- Peter never had a childhood crush on a girl next door.
- Peter went to multiple wrestling matches, as well as getting into showbiz with a tv program, and let the thief go, not out of spite for getting cheated out of his money, but because he didn't care enough to bother himself.
- Uncle Ben never said "with great power there must also come great responsibility", that line was from a non-diegetic narrative box at the very last panel as Peter walks back home in shame after he realizes the thief he let go was the burglar who killed Uncle Ben.
- Eddie Brock didn't work at the Daily Bugle.
- In the "Spider-man No More" storyline, Peter doesn't stop being spider-man because he loses his powers. Instead, the past few years of Jameson calling him a deranged menace have finally gotten to him, his self doubt increases, and he genuinely believes that Jameson is right, and that he is an egotistical maniac who causes more problems than he solves. He stops being Spider-man because he believes it's the more responsible thing to do, not because being Spider-man is ruining his personal life, because he soon finds that his personal life isn't much different when Spider-man is out of the picture. And when he sees an old man in trouble, he jumps into action without his suit, because he realizes that he can never bring himself to stand by again after seeing the old man reminded him of Uncle Ben. That moment was basically a reflection of what Peter did the night of his original sin, but instead of standing by, he jumps in.
- Flash is present at ESU and is a regular fan of Spider-man (even making a Spider-man fan club back at Midtown High).
- The supervillains don't die as soon as they show up.
- Peter becomes more confident after the Spider-bite, even saying comebacks to Flash's face by the time College comes around as opposed to just thinking them to himself .
- Peter was very spiteful to the world before he got his powers, but when he learns that with great power comes great responsibility, he has a complete paradigm shift in his attitude (but still remains a little spiteful and childish until he goes to College
Please comment any other things I probably missed
While I do love the Raimi Trilogy (it was the basically my introduction into Spider-man), I do see the flaws. And it's interesting how it's become this golden standard for Spider-man content even though it's *very* different from the comics
Your comparing to a lot of original points I mean for one thing it's been retconned for pretty much ever that Ben was the one to say with great power comes great responsibility
Here's a list as many differences form the comics in Iron Man I can think of
-Tony Stark in the comics was a much serious and down-to-business kind of man who disliked people who act unprofessionally or don't take things seriously.
-Pepper Potts and Happy Hogan in the comics began working for Stark only after Stark returned from capture and became Iron Man.
-The first woman that Stark bonded with after becoming Iron Man was Joanna Nivena, who was also the first person Stark opened up about being Iron Man, not Pepper.
-Tony Stark for forty years in the comics had a secret identity, with Iron Man being perceived as his personal bodyguard. He revealed his secret identity to the world in 2004, when he saved some kid's dog that jumped on a road.
-There never existed a thing such as the Arc Reactor in the comics. It was invented for the movies. Stark wore a magnetic chest-plate, which could be removed, and which he had to recharge to keep it working.
-Obadiah Stane of the comics wasn’t Stark’s mentor or familiar with Stark’s father. He was roughly the same age as Stark, he appeared twenty years after Iron Man first appeared, he never worked with Stark; he took over his company, took his money, and created such a chain of events, Stark became a homeless man. He also had nothing to do with Stark’s captivity in the war zone. And his real motives were rooted in Stane’s own psychоsis and firm belief that life is a chess match where any means are necessary to win, not money. And when he put on the Iron Monger suit, his motive was not to beat Stark up, but to prove to him a point about his philosophy: that he’ll never lose. And in such Stane, after technical defeat by Stark, kіllеd himself, in such making his defeat a victory, since now he can’t answer for his crimes.
-The tеrrоrist lеader Raza who was behind Stark’s capture never existed in the comics. In the comics it was a Vietcong guerrilla leader named Wong-Chu, who later on was revealed to be working for the Mandarin, who personally assigned him to capture Professor Yinsen and Stark, so they could help him better understand the power of his rings.
-The Mandarin is Iron Man’s arch-nemesis in the comics, with whom Iron Man had battled since he first appeared. The Mandarin was directly involved in the capturing of Stark in the wаr zone, where he also was physically present at the time of Stark’s escape from the enemy camp, where Mandarin saw Iron Man escaping from a distance, and had the chance to kіll him, but spared his life.
-Jarvis was a real man in the comics, who worked as a butler for Stark’s family, was crucial in helping Stark get over his alcoholism, and later on went on to work as a butler at the Avengers Headquarters.
-Stark met Rhodey only after he became Iron Man. Rhodey was a Vіеtnam sоldier that Stark met right after he escaped from an enemy camp. After that, they became friends, and Rhodey worked at Stark Industries as a pilot and an assistant; he was no longer in the military. Rhodey wasn’t War Machine until years later. He first took over as Iron Man after Stark went into hiding and was living as an аlcоhоlic. He then gave the suit back, after Stark went into rehab, and only years later was given the War Machine armor. Which was created by Stark, and which was first worn by Stark.
-Stark in the comics did not stop his wеаpon manufacturing business after he escaped from captivity; he kept on supporting the US military. He changed his views on the military-industrial complex after he went to Vіеtnam as Iron Man, to bring troops new weapons, and had been attacked. Iron Man used the new weapon he brought, surface-to-air mіssiles, and fired back. He then met a young blind boy, whom he tried to bring back to his village, only then to find out that when he used his weapon, those missiles also hit the village of that boy, and kіllеd everyone.
-Tony Stark of the comics does not like rock music, or any modern music; he likes jazz and classical.
-Tony Stark in the comics is a recovering аlcоholic, who let аlcоhоlism destroy him to such an extent, he became a homeless man (as mentioned above) and formed a friendship with a homeless prеgnant woman named Gretl, who dіеd on the snowy streets of NY next to Stark while she went into lаbor. Stark saved her bаby. and that made him reconsider his life completely and forever close his gestalt with the bottle.
-Stark of the comics is a no-nonsense businessman and entrepreneur who spends most of his free time, outside of superheroics, at his office. He lives and breathes business and feels great responsibility for his employees, and that’s why he’d never hand the reins of his company to somebody like Pepper Potts just because he feels so.
-There are major supporting characters in the comics who never show up in the movies, like Mrs. Arbogast, who’s like Stark’s surrogate mother. Bethany Brant, who worked as Stark’s bodyguard, who was probably his biggest love interest, and was also an important figure in helping Stark get over his alcoholism during his first battle with it.
-Anton Vanko in the comics was a renewed soviet scientist, who created a Russian analog of Iron Man’s armor, Crimson Dynamo suit, and was personally appointed by Хрущев to defeat him. But after learning that he was misinformed about Iron Man, and after Stark played him a recording of Хрущев talking about killing Vanko after he returns home, Vanko rejects the soviet regime, becomes Stark’s friend, and works for him. He then sacrifices himself to save Stark when the second Crimson Dynamo alongside Black Widow (who was a soviet villain when she first met Iron Man) tried to kill him. He wasn’t a drunk bum who tried to steal something from Stark’s father, and he never had a son.
-Justin Hammer of the comics was modeled after Peter Cushing, was British, and lived in hiding on a floating island, supplying various villains with his weapons, and was a central figure to Stark’s fall from grace when he became an alcoholic. He was not a pathetic American entrepreneur who envied Stark.
-Tony Stark never knew a nerdy guy named Adrich Killian, and Aldrich Killian never had any conflict with Stark in Switzerland and didn’t gain superpowers. He died in a single page and his story was over.
-Maya Hansen didn’t die in the Extremis story. She was apprehended by the authorities after Stark found out that it was her who sold the weapon to a group of domestic terrorists.
-The physical rival of Iron Man in the Extremis story was a neo-nazi terrorist named Malen, whose objective was to kill the US president, not kidnapp him and put in an Iron Man suit.
-The Extremis serum in the comics does not make people into lava. It enhances their physical abilities.
-When Stark faced Malen and lost to him, almost dying, he then had to inject Extremis into himself and become superhuman, developing the ability to use technopathy.
-The plot point in Iron Man 3 where Stark calls out the terrorists to come and blow up his house and then does nothing smart when it happens is very out-of-character, since a similar event occured in the comics when Stark was at his home with Pepper and Happy, then drunk Mrs. Marvel appeared clamoring for a fight with Iron Man, and Stark told his home security system to shield the house, then he put on the suit, and tried to get the fight with Carol away from his home.
-Stark calls kid a рussу, which CB Stark would definitely never do, since Stark of the comics would never insult kids, and in general the kind of person to not resort to cussing.
-Rhodey leaving Stark midway through the battle at the end of IM3 is as out-of-character as it can get.
Please comment any other things I probably missed
While I do not love the Iron Man Trilogy (it was the reason why I stopped caring about the MCU), I do see the flaws. And it's interesting how it's become this golden standard for superhero content even though it's very different from the comics
Here's a list of as many differences of the MCU Thor form the comics that I can think of
-In the comics Thor was banished without a memory of his past life, in the body of a limping man named Donald Blake, who was working as a doctor. Later on he went to Norway and was attacked by Kronans. He ended up in a cave where he found a stick, which was an enchanted mjolnir that gave back Thor's powers and memory.
-Thor didn’t immediately go back to Asgard after gaining his powers. He kept on double identity and was helping people as both people.
-Jane Foster was a nurse, not a physicist, who worked with Donald Blake at the hospital, which is how she and Thor met. She didn’t have two annoying scientist friends who accompanied her (Selviq and Darcy were made-up for the MCU).
-MCU’s Asgard lacks the famed gates from mythology and comics that shield the place from the unwanted visitors.
-Jotunheim in the comics was not an icy planet; it was a place that had mountains, trees, sunlight, and animals.Jotuns weren’t just the same looking male-only NPCs who were evil. They came in different shapes and sizes (some could look like humanoid icycle, some could look like giant men with beards and hair), were a sophisticated race with its own culture, who lived a lifestyle similar to neanderthals, had their own religion, were creating families, and used handmade protection and weapons in battle.
-The reason why Asgardians and Jotuns were at war with each other for thousands of years had nothing to do with Jotuns trying to invade Midgard during the Iron Age and Asgardians stopping them. In the comics the conflict began when the first giant known as Ymir, with whom Odin battled at the dawn of time, was banished (in later comics it was changed to resemble the original poem of Voluspa and Ymir was said to have been slayed to use his body as the construct for the world) to Muspelheim by Odin, hence the animosity between Jotuns and Aesir.
-Much of the Asgardian pantheon of gods and history does not exist in the MCU or is not given the proper development.Vital characters like Baldr, who’s another of Thor’s brothers, and who was around since the beginning of Thor’s comics, and was also integral the conflict between Thor and Loki, and plays a big role in Ragnarok, does not exist in the MCU. Also there’s no mention of Tyr, Asgardian God of War, who’s the fourth brother of Thor. No mention in the MCU of the eldest of gods, such as Buri, the first of the Aesir, who was created after a primordial giant cow licked an icycle at the dawn of time inside which he was found. No mention of Thor’s biological mother from the comics, an earth goddess named Gaea.
-The World Tree does not exist in the MCU as a literal tree that connects with its branches different realms, unlike the comics.
-Odin and Thor had a hand in the development of humanity in the comics. Thor, by Odin’s command, went on a dangerous journey to bring Mimir a branch of the Yggdrasil tree to create the first two humans, Ask and Embla. In the MCU Thor did not even know of the existence of earth and humans.
-Loki in the comics was at odds with Thor way before Tho’s banishment; and Thor knew that Loki’s dark at heart since they were children. Loki himself was not a likable character. He was vicious, malevolent, and if there would show some empathy from him, it would mostly be a cover up for his evil doings. He was also much stronger and vicius in the comics, and could fight Thor one-on-one. He also had love relationships with the likes of Sigyn, his wife from the mythology, and Leila, a fellow practicer of dark magic.
-Sif and Thor were lovers for thousands of years, and she was always his true love, and took part in every big journey Thor went on. In the MCU such a thing is non-existent.
-In the comics Asgardians survive for so long and keep their strong thanks to the golden fruits known as the Idun Apples, which were harvested by the character known as Enchantress, who is a vilified version of the Norse Goddess Idun. If Asgardians won’t eat them, they will grow weak and old very quickly.
-In the comics Heimdal is Sif’s brother, and he uses his famed Gjallarhorn, a horn that can create a sound that can be heard across the universe, to alert the rest of Asgard of the approaching dangers.
-Warriors Three were Thor’s brothers in arms that would always march with him into battle. They were not just in-and-out sidekicks. Their friendship and adventures with Thor were more like what was between the members of the Fellowship of the Ring. They also had lives outside of that occupation. Volstagg had a family, Fendral was a lady’s man, and Hogun was a determined warrior with a grim personality.
-In the comics, like in the myths, there’s an ongoing rivalry between Asgardians and a fellow group of Norse Gods, who share the same heritage, called Vanir, which is never brought up in the movies.
-The MCU does not ever focus on the famed Odinforce, an energy that gives whoever wields the reigns to Asgard an immeasurable strength.
-The MCU completely forgot about the power which holds Odin’s spear known as Gungnir, which in the comics holds the named force and is capable of creating or destroying entire worlds.
-One of Thor’s greatest rivals in the comics is a world-sized serpent named Jormugand, who’s an offspring of Loki, whom Thor shall battle at Ragnarok.
-During Ragnarok, Loki will be one of the evil forces. Loki will be leading an army of the dead on the biggest sea ship in the universe known as Naglfar, to bring on the Ragnarok, to destroy Asgard.
-Unlike the comics, MCU’s Ragnarok does not show prominent events such as: a devastating ice age tarnishing the world of asgard, famine, Loki being the bringer of Ragnarok and leading legions to battle Asgard, his offspring Jormugandr battling Thor, death of Baldr, Odin fighting alongside his sons and becoming a giant force to stop Surtur at the end, no nothing. And Hela is an observer in the comics, and she's not related to Odin.
While I do not love the Thor Trilogy (except for the first movie), I do see the flaws. And it's interesting how it's become this golden standard for Thor content even though it's very different from the comics
That’s kinda the point of the 3rd movie with Peter. The symbiot changes him and corrupts him and that’s what it does
Yeah. That argument seemend particularly weak to me. "I don't like that the thing that makes people unlikeable made my hero unlikeable" - well, sorry, but that's taken straight out of the comics. That's just what the symbiote does.
Man, this reply section feels so weird in hindsight
Finally some who gives Topher Grace credit. I think it's unfair that he gets hated so much. He doesn't belong into this movie, becuase it's not his movie (however, Raimi had no chance here, was was forced to use him, even when he didn't want). It would have been a nice end to set him up as the villain for the 4th movie, they could have moved the scene in the chruch to the end. But based on the material he had to work with, he was a fine cast. When the idea was to establish Eddie as some kind of mirror image of Peter, then this was a really good cast.
The Sam Raimi Spider-Man Movie are almost or probably are my favorite ones, but I will say that all your problems you brought up were accurate and understandable and are valid points and I still think I like the Sam Raimi films but I do completely understand and consider the issues and make me like the movies less.
Why because Vee says so?
I don't mind the Raimi trilogy...well, except the third one. It has its moments but oh boy what a mess. I prefer his superhero Darkman more with its creativity and weirdness. The rage scenes are so much fun that even the Hulk would be jealous. Unfortunately, it gave us 2 weak sequels.
Take the fucking elephant!
To be fair, Sony is to blame for the third movie. Even then it is still pretty damn good, just not on the level of the other 2.
@@LordViperhat Its also Raimi's fault for purposely not doing Venom right because he didn't like the character.
@@virgogaming6488 He never really stated he didn't like the character. He just didn't have a place in the movie that he was being forced into by Sony. Even then Raimi did the character really well, it is literally just people whining over the fact he doesn't look like a roided gorilla.
@@LordViperhat From what I heard Sam was ignoring the fan demand for Venom after Spider-Man 2 and wanted to just use old school villains like Vulture and Sandman which Avi Arad didn't find fair since Sam had gotten to do villains he liked doing. So it is Raimi's fault in that regard.
Just a heads up for the commenters: The original Raimi trilogy are some of my all time favourite movies, and while I completely disagree with 98% of the points that this yankeedooodle fuckwit coughs up, Vee Infuso is a buddy of mine and I take no issue with his views or him personally. And if I don't have issues with it, neither should you. This has been an endorsement. Much love Vee Infuso.
The comic accuracy argument here is a bit weak. I mean for one, while you can argue the cosmetic stuff isn't all comic accurate, the Raimi films (with the exception of Venom) largely nail the essence of the characters, which is the most important part of doing an adaptation. Does Spider-Man do as many quips? No, but he's still a regular guy trying to balance his personal life with his superheroics, that feels a great deal of responsibility. Is Doc Ock the cheesy "I wanna rob banks because I have ultimate power" villain from the comics? No, but his origin and powers are pretty much the exact same, they just add an extra layer of sympathy to his origin (just like what BTAS did to Mr. Freeze).
When people say the Raimi movies are the most accurate, I don't think they mean it literally. They mean that they're the closest we've ever gotten to a proper version of Spider-Man on film, that truly captures the feel and tone of the character.
That's kinda the problem with the MCU Spider-Man for me. Because it's sort of the complete opposite. They have a bunch of the cosmetics there (web shooters, comic accurate costume, quips), but the essence is just all wrong and feels extremely lacking.
I'm pretty sure some people meant literally. I still remember how when Andrew's franchise first started, he got ridicule for having webshooters, being quippy to point of seeming kind of dickish, and being too good looking. People can like one more than another or even criticize when they see the movies as lacking, but one thing I see from certain fans I don't agree with is the gatekeeping notion omthat only Tobey could be Spider-Man.
@@parkerboy795
Well, sure, there's always going to be a certain group of people with dumb arguments. Posers that pretend like they know the comics when they haven't read a single comic book in their life for instance are very prevalent.
I'm more referring to the people making this argument that actually know what they're talking about.
I do think my initial point also applies to the Webb films as an aside. Those films get the cosmetics right too (costume...atleast in the 2nd one, web-shooters, quips etc.), but totally flop when it comes to the important thematic stuff.
The way Ben dies is stupid and makes Peter look less at fault (You don't charge a guy with a gun ffs). Peter being given his powers because he has special Parker blood completely ruins the core of thee character, that anyone could have gotten the powers, and instead makes it some weird, genetic, chosen one thing. Oscorp making all the villains also completely ruins these characters having their own personalities, origins and traits and pretty much just makes their identities gimmicks etc.
The Raimi films don't get all the cosmetic stuff right, that's been beaten to death, but the important thematic stuff is on point. It's not perfect, but it's the closest to perfect we have gotten on film so far, with only Into the Spider-Verse really getting close.
@@marvelfannumber1 Fair enough, but I think each series actually does get something the other lacked. Both cosmetically and thematically.
@@parkerboy795
I don't disagree. I think the Webb films get Peter's personality and relationships more right than the others, while the MCU films nail his kind of youthful naivete and his willingness to rashly jump into situations that get him into trouble.
But the main point was really that the Raimi films are the most complete package when it comes to this. There's far more thematic stuff they get right, and it's on a much wider spectrum. So if I was asked which live-action version of Spider-Man is the most comic accurate I'd respond "none of them are, but Raimi's is the closest overall".
@@marvelfannumber1 I'll admit that maybe the Raimi films are the best, but I'm not knocking any of the other Spider-Men either, even if their movies may not up to the same standards.
For somebody who never read the comics. I can’t really judge! All I know is that. His movies have amazing life lessons. Realistic dialogue. And I just love the first two films. 🗣
Agreed but the dialogue is far from realistic 😭
@@titan2k928 ikr
@@titan2k928 to be fair. It's coming from. A person who puts. "." In the wrong. Places.
@@titan2k928 Yeah, the dialogue is less believable than fucking Shakespeare.
Actually Spider-Man is kinda of an asshole lmaooo! It's in the books. He’s a human being. That's the fun part.
No he’s not
@@Galvatronover yes he is
@@thebestofthebest5724 jerk doesn’t equal relatable
@@Galvatronover Relatability doesn’t equate to reality. That’s what makes Peter interesting in the books is the reality of the character
@@thebestofthebest5724 I’m not against that
Spider-Man 3 was exactly trying to explore this casual and funny aspect of Spider-Man, quips, light hearted action with only Sandman as villian and shut off many complaints this franchise was recieving. But Sony messed it up by bringing Venom, when Sam clearly said he doesn't have knowledge on that character and he didn't want to direct him.
And even then Sam thought to redeem himself with 4th movie. Spider-Man 4 was gonna be kick ass Spider-Man movie with less emotional drama. With fully blown fun, light hearted, quipy Spider-Man. It was also gonna have suit change in that movie. Looked exactly like ultimate comics.
But Sony cancelled it.
Originally Sandman was the only villian planned by Sam Raimi in SM 3. But Avi Arad forced Raimi to add Venom, when Film shooting already began. Convincing him that, fans want it. Pressurising him during film making and already started plans for new reboot during Spider-Man 3 shooting. Sam Raimi knew about this reboot and he assumed this was gonna be his last entry to this franchise. So he had to bring New Goblin too. Which he was setting up from past two movies and planned it for future. But he had no choice now, because he knew this was gonna be his last entry.
He directly told to sony that he had no knowledge on Venom and he can't direct him. He didn't want to direct him. But Sony wouldn't listen. And started talk's for reboot if Sam didn't listen to them.
And the result
He didn't handle 3 villian's properly, so it became a mess.
It is all Avi Arad's/Sony's fault.
MJ was not gonna be damsel in distress in the climax of this movie.
As you said in the video why couldn't she bring harry and peter together. In the original climax of the Spider-Man 3 she does exactly that. You can even hear her cut dialogue in the Spider-Man 3 trailer.
And yeah this trilogy had always been goofy and MJ's character was poorly handled. But all the these issues were gonna be resolved in Spider-Man 3 that Sam Raimi planned. But due to sony's interference we got completely different film.
Even Sam Raimi admitted that SM 3 was an awful film.
Personally, I have liked/loved all of the Spider-Man films that have been released so far. I like pretty much every version of Spider-Man
Spider man is a little hard to mess up
The only movie that seemed to get Spider-Man right comic accurate wise is the first Amazing Spider-Man.
@@virgogaming6488 care to point me toward a comic in which Spider-Man reveals his secret identity to a girl he barely knows just to impress her, or when he breaks dead man's oath? Or where Gwen Stacy is a genius scientist Mary Sue who works at Oscorp and is smarter than Peter.
@@antona.8659 Personality wise the Garfield films were closer to Peter's character from the comics, mostly the Ultimate comics.
@@virgogaming6488 no, it wasn't. CB Peter was all about protecting his identity, not revealing it to every girl he knows, or breaking dead man's promises. And no Spider-Man has been accurate toward Ultimate Spider-Man in live-action.
I love the Sam Raimi Spider man movies (Spider man 2 is one my favorite super hero movies of all), however, after re watching them and reading the comics, I start to notice some flaws in it, as well some misconceptions they create about Spider man and his mythology in the comics. As you said, Peter's lack of humor as Spider man is the biggest exemple of this. His jokes aren't in the story just because of humor, they are part of Peter character grow.
In the comics (more specific in the Stan Lee and Steve Ditko/John Romita run) Peter starts as lonely akward nerd. When he becomes Spider man he gains a sense of freedom and confidence, allowing to express himself. as his story developed, Peter start to grow as person as well, becoming more confident in himself and slowly becoming friends with people like Gwen Stacy, Harry Osborn and Mary Jane . Becoming Spider man is what allows Peter to embrace his potential and grow into a mature and resposible man.
This becomes very clear in Amazing Spider man 50 (which was adapted in Spider man 2, although the movie sort of misinterpreted some of its ideas), where Peter surrenders to his insecurites and gives up being Spider man so he can have more time for the people in his personal life. However, unlike the movie, Peter's life doesn't improve at all, because now it's his friends and family who don't have time for him. When Peter saves a old man from some thugs, it's the moment that makes him realize how being was important for him, because it was what gave him a purpose to his life and allowed in him to grow and become a better person. He was no longer that angsty kid who failed to save his uncle. Now he was a responsible man who wouldn't let anyone down.
I mean, I frickin adore these movies but I TOTALLY get it. It's a different Spider-Man. What gets me though, are the people that trash Tom Holland's Spider-Man for not being comic accurate, but then point to Toby as if he is. People be crazy
These movies are held in such high regard because they were the first big super hero blockbusters before MCU.
And just like 60s music, which I don't think is as great as everyone thinks it is, just because it the original, doesn't mean its great
I feel like Tobey could’ve been a good Spider-Man in the movies because when he voices him in the movie tie end game he gets both the characters right in one story
Exactly, which has always made the lack of it in the actual films all the more frustrating.
@@dkamphaus43 well tbf the characters in the movies are only as good as the writing of the lines, although sometimes the characters do well even with bad lines overall it's unfortunate he didn't get better lines and quips for Spidey
Also you talked about quips without including the "here's your change" from the bank fight in Spider-Man 2?
Anything to make it look bad i guess.
it's one quip that doesn't change things in general
@@dailyduck1488 I think what it does, is highlights a misunderstanding of the character. Spider-Man doesn’t need to quip every two seconds to be entertaining. Spider-Man 2 only has a couple and it’s the best Spider-Man movie
@@izzik2781 no
@@dailyduck1488 if you disagree with my position, than what’s your opinion? And your reasoning for holding that opinion?
Alright boys, get him.
I don't know, dude...a vast majority of these issues are pretty nit-picky.
yeah. this is just another guy that is upset that it isnt 100% the comics
I personally like that this Peter is still a bit awkward even in the mask but it would’ve been nice to see him quip as much as he did in the tie in games
I swear every video I’m like I 100% agree with you and the next video I’m like no I 100% disagree. This is one of those time I disagree. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy in my opinion are one of the best superhero films. I’m not a fan at all of TASM. Holland Spider-Man is okay but it’s super generic and lacks storyline. They’re not bad but they’re not memorable at all.
i kinda love Homecoming for delving into the more Friendly Neighborhood aspect of Spider-Man. I agree with FFH though, i didnt like it as much/
How does Tom Holland lack storyline though it’s similar to how raimi movies were developing storyline that’s my opinion though
@@shadowstrike234 the raimi only had Peter help normal people while in homecoming he spends most of the movie pining over iron man wanting to be an avenger rather then be your friendly neighborhood spider man and he is made into a mostly incompetent buffoon
@@stempest7218 i kinda disagree with only wanting to be an Avenger and pining over Tony cuz he does defy him multiple times to go stop the Vulture.
@@shadowstrike234 he was defying tony to impress him
One thing I hated in these films, is the suit hardly taking damage despite it being just a skin tight outfit.
Also the reason why MJ didn't get the acting role in the first film, was because the woman who told MJ she needed acting lessons, is Flash's Aunty. It was to get back at MJ for breaking up with Flash.
I feel like his argument about spider man being sort of wimpy in this trilogy is a bit week first off he does gain confidence he just is awkward and that’s why his lines come off like that
i also have an unpopular opinion about the Sam Raimi movies Harry and Peter in the movies don’t feel like real friends like the MCU peter and ned are shown hanging out you barely get that in the rami movies name one time they sat down and talked like real friends
Even tho this upsets me,I can't argue with the facts. I definitely agree on how Mary Jane is portrayed and like every Raimi fan,wish they could've done her better. Vee this is definitely one of my favorites of yours even with different opinions
She was only weak part for the trilogy imo
I’m not even mad at this. This take on the trilogy is hilarious I gotta sub now
This video should be called “why I’m the wrongest person on the planet”
Pete was much more headstrong and stood up for himself much more in the comics, which translated well into his Spidey persona, but I think they made the right choice making him more akward in the Raimi films as you don’t have enough time to develop the character as you do in a monthly to twice monthly comic
To be fair I will still take Sam Raimi's Spider-Man series over MCU Iron Boy.
Same here.
Mcu spidey ain't that bad really. Like he's actually pretty good.
@@robertrivera5569 The actor yes he fits the role, But the Iron-man over reliance I think waters down the Spider-Man side much.
It feels like the suit does more of the work and is the reason why he wins, rather than his own powers or skills.
Id take sam's and webb's films over mcu's films (not saying he was terrible this kind of spiderman story isn't the most sparking to me)
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD ehh.. I guess I disagree. Tom's Spiderman has shown beneath all the fancy suit he's his own man... a Spiderman if you will. You know stuff like stopping Vulture's plane heist on his own becuase it was the right thing to do.
Creating his own suit and kicking Mysterios ass all through his own know how, grit and determination; He looks the part but imo opinion has those Spiderman qualities that make him a great Spidey in his own right.
Peter crying for the other scenes was basically whenever someone died, but yeah Peter crying when Mary Jane rejects him for being a jerk in Spider-Man 3 is dumb, even if it’s in character.
As much I love and appreciate the Raimi Trilogy and its one of my favorites, the film's biggest problems did kinda bother me compared to watching Spectacular or playing PS4 where I felt the issues became smaller because GOD those were near-perfection.
The Raimi Trilogy isn't holy or perfect, especially with Spider-Man 3 being very average and one of the two Spidey films I didn't like.
Do you have any idea how much they sacrificed?!
Heh.
I get that this video is all Vee's opinion and he never really tries to make it seem as though his opinion is fact BUT his opinion is FUCKING WRONG. Literally all I got from this 33 minute fucking video is that if its not entirely comic book accurate then it's not good, and honestly I think that this is the most comic book feeling Spiderman there is it doesn't matter if the movies are entirely comic accurate. Aside from a few changes such as organic webbing and Ock not being a mustache twirling villain it feels like Sam Raimi just ripped out Spiderman pages and put in on the big screen. Maybe since I grew up with this movies I have some sort of bias but I respect the changes that Sam made to the characters and how they act and I especially respect him for having the balls to make Peter unlikeable in the 3rd film, for me making Peter unlikeable in the 3rd movie really makes the character feel more human going through changes and different stages in his life for me it really builds upon the character development that the 2nd film gave peter. And as far as Ock not being this mustache twirling villain ripped directly from the comics, I honestly prefer this interpretation of him, for me it really does a great job of making me and most others empathize with him and it really makes him feel like a real human being. So basically I get that it's his own opinion but I think that this opinion is filled with soo MUCH bullshit that I just had to comment on it.
That MJ segment was accurate
@@Galvatronover Yea I guess that's true
Peter allowing someone to get mugged is ass cheeks and a assassination of spider mans character. I like the raimi films but they nowhere close to being accurate to the comics.
@@cubearts1Yea that was a bit I F F Y to say the least when peter let that kid get mugged, but I never said anything about the movies being comic accurate I said that the movies feel like comic books.
Okay, I agree and I disagree. Now I'm a fan of all hero movies (except Captain Marvel and Josstice League), Comic book accurate or not, they're all mostly pretty good, except for the Spiderman trilogy. I did grow up with these movies. I loved them when I was a kid, they were my favorite movies. I was a Spiderman fan. Literally almost all of my clothes were Spiderman or just red. Anyways, although I enjoyed the movies as a kid, when I got older however, they started to not make sense. Now when I was a kid, I didn't know that most movies were based off of books. That being said, I never liked the whole spider web science in the movies. At the time I didn't know they weren't supposed to be comic book accurate, cause I never read comics, but I still didn't like it. Especially when also at the time I was watching Spiderman cartoons. My dad is kind of old, so when he was a kid, he read the first marvel comics. He told me that, in the comics, Spiderman had all his powers except the ability to make his own webs. Instead Peter Parker made Web Shooters. So looking back at the old Spiderman movies I realize that the whole web scenario is bad. And I mean bad, especially for the second movie. Now I do admit that that movie was pretty cool and entertaining, but 2/3rds of the movie is Peter Parker losing his powers over time, then starts living without powers, then try's to get his powers back. That's not a bad idea for a story, but the webs get in the way. You see, Peter lost all his powers including his webs. He's just a normal human guy. But, if he was comic book accurate with web shooters, he would've still lost his powers, but would still have the ability to shoot artificial webs. So that one guy that got mugged in the alleyway could've been saved. He could've gone after Doctor Octopus. He could've still swung around. But no, he had to have actual webs, which led to loss of webs, which led to 2/3rds of the movie being a dumb plot. And another thing, Green Goblin. He's supposed to be a goblin deformity, and yet we got a Green Iron Man. TAS2 got it a little more correct, actually a lot correct even Spiderman and Gwen Stacy. Gwen Stacy was more useful than dumbass MJ. Sandman and Doctor Octopus were the only 2 villain's I actually liked in the trilogy. But any way's, thats my take on the trilogy. I do enjoy the trilogy, but there are some major, major flaws.
The CM Punk pipe bomb clip as you state that you don’t hate the Raimi films. Well played, well played.
I agree with a lot of your points but here's the thing... of the three times they've tried a movie series, it's the truest to the character of those, and it's also the best as films. Of course Raimi series isn't perfect, but nothing irritates me more than people saying how much better the Tom Holland series is just because it's the MCU or they stan Tom or whatever. Those aren't true to the character at all, so if you don't like these, you better say those are practically shit. Quips and jokes do not a Spider-Man make.
Im so glad I found your channel. After watching your video on The Dark Knight trilogy and now this video, I have had the opinion that these movies are extremely overrated. People hold these superhero movies as the gold standard for the characters when both Raimi and Nolan really didn't seem to give a shit about the source material for the movies they made. It's aggravating.
Agreed. I don't get the overwhelming praise The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2 get. Those aren't great scripts IMO. But why should I bother arguing? A LOT of people (e.g. Chris Stuckmann) have both Raimi and Nolan as two of their favourite directors. I for one try not to have favourite directors. But I do think Marc Webb and Jon Watts are two underrated ones. I think I gravitate towards their style of filmmaking more than I do to either Raimi's or Nolan's because they have a tendency to be about establishing interpersonal relationships and character dynamics, which I think is more my thing than Raimi's style or Nolan's.
It's almost like he wakes up and says what the worst take I could have lol. To be honest I loved this movies when they came out and got kind of sour on them but recently I've respected them a lot more cuz at least they let spiderman be spiderman in these movies .
😅😅
23:15 Shirley Henderson was 37 in 2002, playing a role that has her flirting with *_ACTUAL_* kids. 57-58 now. Yeah, the double standards were strong back then. I realized that I used to think high school kids looked grown probably because of the movies.
I mean I don't fault him for turning her down, in damn near every hero comic, movie and or series. A villain eventually finds out their identity and goes after their friends and family. For the 26 years old playing 16 years old in movies, use to make me mad. But with some of the adult content with some scripts, I would feel uncomfortable seeing it play out with an actual 16 years old.
You don't need an actual 16 year old in the role, you just need someone who doesn't look like they're actually 35.
@@ebenade1 I think it works because how only spends the 1st 1/3 of the 1st film in high school
So it's either get a grown adult to play a child for 1/3 of a film or or get a child looking man to play an adult for 2 and 2/3 of a trilogy
@@ebenade1 Tobey never looked 35. Your point, silly?
I don’t understand the issue people have with the actors age. Why? Well how much life experience do people have? I have seen A lot of teenagers who are 18 who look older.
True, but that will they or won't they crap gets annoying. Several superhero projects did that and it had the unfortunate effect of making the characters look like jerks.
I preferred tasm personally, but no way home was perfect.
That J Jonah Jameson impression by Pup is priceless
Pup used to do some badass impressions/voices back in the days; it's a shame he's quit doing them... Pup's JokerZ skits were something else.
Why I like the Sam Rami moves and even the new spiderman movies and even the new video games is they get you invested in the characters you really feel emotionally connected to them and actually root for them
There's no perfect movie Spider-man...
Raimi's is the closest one though.
Cause one thing is certain: SM ain't no billionaire's pet.
I got to know Spidey with the Stern- Romita JR run. If anyone know that run understands why Tobey wasn't my Peter. Still... seeing Spiderman 2002 in the cinema... blew me away. I'll always have a soft spot for the first Raimi movie.
I can understand Spiderman 3, But seriously the first 2, They set the gold standard for that a Superhero movie should be, and I do agree with you're Mary jane stuff, Funny enough, you are saying the same stuff about Toby's Spiderman as I do Tom's Spiderman, That he perfectly dose Peter Parker, but it dosn't feel like Spiderman when he is in the suit, it just feels like Peter, I think Andrew did a Great Spiderman but a terrible Peter Parker.
Andrew’s Peter is pretty accurate to the comics, and just because they set the standard down at mean they can be criticized.
@@niceusername303 I know it was, I just didn't really get the peter parker feeling I got with Toby or Tom
@shadonic565 Yeah it has it's flaws, Most films do, but overall I think they were great as Superhero Comicbook Movies
I actually prefer 3 over the first two. I still love all of them.
@@albertwesker2316 Spider-man 3 dose have some good things about it, but It just also has more problems about it than the others
Vee infusion: “Just give me a chance.”
Also Vee : “I don’t like spider man 2”.
fun fact: the guy that turns and looks back at marry jane when she's running in her wedding dress in spider-man 2 is the punisher
I find that scene hilarious
Intentional or not
14:30 I can’t believe how spot on his cartoon avatar is compared to what Vee looks like irl
I think 2 was a bit overhyped, and 3 definitely needed a noticeable change to the plot and pacing, but I still stand by these movies quite a lot for really making the superhero genre respectable again.
For all of Raimi's Spiderman's faults ( and there are a lot), there is one huge thing they got right and that make it all worth for me: J Jonah Jameson. Seriously, J.K. Simmons was born for the role.
I think turning her down makes a lot of sense how much has he lost in a short window of time. He even endangered his own Aunts life just by trying to do that right thing. Peter Parkers burden of responsibility consumes him. He doesn't want anymore death on his hands so he has to make the hard choices.
Also Peter Parker is underdeveloped as a person he's still socially inept on the otherhand he's made so much progress as Spider-man. He's more spider-man than Peter Parker
Also an important aspect is him being broke lmao Ben was laid off and there needed to be a source of income in the house. He lives in a crummy ass apartment or with his friend for a short time.Mcu Spider-man isn't burdened by that and neither was Andrew (although Andrew was a better version than mcu)
3:45 could you imagine that’s how Spider-Man No Way Home opens up
Also I will say Vee I really think you’re right about the dynamic of MJ and Peters relationship, no where near what it is in the comics.
And he’s frighteningly obsessed with her in 2 (especially) since that she was already with somebody else. Which is why I find it alarming when people defend it
Black Carnage is the best way I've ever heard to describe SM3's Venom. Lol. How have I never thought of that?
Man Vee just hates everything
So true
Stop putting "Like", and start putting "Love" on your titles. Youre just reaching for views
I have never seen something so brave yet so true
If we didn't care about quips when we were kids than why do we care now? It feels like that kind thing was put in the comics SPACIFCALLY for kids to distract them from the depressing stuff. So if we didn't need them as kids why would we need them now?
Not comic book accurate seems like an excuse just because you want to criticize it. Everyone knows there is no such movie that is 100 percent accurate to its original source.
First of all, if you didn’t like the movies because they weren’t accurate to the comics, what about the people who loved it? They obviously did read the comics as well. They liked it because they did know before watching it that the movie wasn’t going to be 100 percent accurate and enjoyed it for what that movie meant to make.
Different people like different movies, for different reasons.
@@nt8255 exactly!
Least biased Tobey fan. We can see you are one.
Like seriously, we all know it's not comic accurate, except Tobey fans. They are so nostalgic so biased to these movies that they throw whatever argument even if they don't make sense. If you were on the internet, you would see clearly how they are biased with their pink tinted glasses. They all say "they are comic accurate!" (despite not reading the comics) and they just say that he's the "OG", and a "Chad". And when you say you like TASM or MCU Spiderman, all of a sudden they are mad, and sent you hate for liking it. Then, they say that you're a kid so that's the reason why you like the movie. But stop being hypocrites seriously. You were most likely a kid when you were watching Tobey's movies. So stop comparing them and be open-minded.
Narrator" Why would Harry continue to seek retribution of Spider-man after finding out his dad was the Green Goblin?'
Uhm.
Because humans actually do stuff like that?
Also, because, as the movie suggested, Harry was losing his grip on his sanity.
Did he not actually watch all of the movies in their entirety????
Man with the Batman movies I was always like "well ya know, its an opinion" but im not even 1 minute in and the very concept of this hurts my soul
I mean sandman and Harry were meant to be the only 2 villains in spiderman 3
But sony interfered and forced raimi to add venom and the black suit
*Hi-tops angry reaction*
"Just give me a chance!"
DID YOU GIVE UNCLE BEN A CHANCE?
I'm the guy who said spiderman 2 is the worst one and they fucking acted like I killed God almighty
personally i dont watch superhero movies for the fights or the tights. its all about the man behind the mask- Peter Parker. And he was played perfectly! No one else has come close
Ah so because Tobey’s Spider-Man didn’t make cheap jokes, he isn’t Spider-Man. Raimi has been the only director so far who has understood the character. And I don’t trust anyone who thinks the MCU Spider-Man films are better
Homecoming is a better film than Spider-Man 1 & 3, that's the truth
@@ebenade1 homecoming is mid. It’s filmed like a disney channel original film, no visual flare. Sure, the vulture is a tremendous villain and he’s one of my favourites, but everything else is bland. You are probably a kid if you think Jon Watts’ films can even compare to Raimi’s two masterpieces who even Martin Scorsese likes.
@@shubo4478 Lol, why is the go-to tactic of Raimi fans to imply that everyone who disagrees with them is some kid. I grew up with the Raimi films, they've been overrated by many, and several aspects of those films just have not aged well at all. Homecoming outshines both SM 1 and 3, in regard to acting and overall plot for me. I still enjoy the Raimi films, but they're not as good as they used to be.
Martin Scorsese is my favorite director tho, so I do respect his opinion if that makes you feel better lol.
@@ebenade1 lmaoooo i probably should have looked at your profile picture. You are certainly not a kid ahahah, it’s probably the go to tactic because most raimi haters are usually MCU stans that haven’t seen many other films.
I mistakenly assumed you as one of those MCU stans, my bad. And ye I could see the argument for it being better than 3, that film was very packed. And I’m glad you like Martin Scorsese ahah, he’s a chad dissing the MCU films and giving no fucks
i gotta say vee infuso u look good fam 😎😎 this video kinda opened my eyes a bit for the trilogy lmaoo peter wtf
The studio forced their hand into Raimi 3rd film. As a passive aggressive protest he wrote it badly and you can tell which part of the movie was his. E.G Yhe beautiful Sandman transformation
He didn't write any of the movies, fucking dumbass. He strictly directed ,fucking moron!
27:34 Actually, what you describe was Sam Raimi original idea for Harry's arc in Spider man 3. From what I heard, instead of making him into a new goblin, Raimi planned to have Harry in conflict about what to do now he knows that Peter is Spider man and his father is the Green Goblin. He wouldn't return to be best friends with Peter but he also wouldn't follow his father footsteps. He would basically be a character in the middle of the conflict between Spider man and Vulture (who was suppose to be the villain in the third movie, until Sony forced Raimi to replace him with Sandman and Venom).
Raimi didn't write the movies, dumbass.
I absolutely loved your analysis. I’ve been saying this from the jump. Tobey as Peter is fine, but his Spider-Man was weak. Andrew Garfield nailed the confidence and quips with Spider-Man
But his Peter was weak
his peter is to cool
@@spider-man9608 consider reading older spiderman comics peter was a jerk before he even got his powers in stan lee's run
@@conradlorgar5508 physically? Or
@@yourfatboy5359 I meant his interpretation of Peter was weak in the same way raimis spidey wasn't great and yeah peter was too cool and confident, he was more of a skater boy than a dork
One of my issues with the movies is that MJ in them is just red haired Gwen Stacy, and then when they introduced Gwen in Spider-Man 3, they made her blonde Mary Jane down to being a model. Like how their presentation is literally backwards, like Raimi wanted to use Gwen all along but the studio made him use MJ since she was more well known from the 90s series. Even the relationship issues with MJ and Peter seem like how Peter and Gwen were in the original comics, if you want to know more about what I mean I recommend watching Casually Comics video about Gwen and how her presentation changed after her death.
Bully Maguire is the G.O.A.T though
Saying "it's not faithful to the source material" isn't a very strong argument, in my opinion. Some of the greatest films of all time are unfaithful adaptations, including, but not limited to:
-The Shining (1980)
-The Godfather Part II (1974)
-Die Hard (yes really)
Imagine if somebody said they didn't like Die Hard because it was different to the book.