How much are the spiderman movies based on the comic book?

Question

The stories that have been portrayed so far - are they based on actual events in the comic book? I do remember seeing a picture on the dvd features that showed a comic book picture of spiderman giving up his costume. This would be inline with the plot in the SP2. Anyway, I need info from all the Spidey fans...

Answer 1

The movies are only loosely based on the comics. Even the movie origin of Spider-Man isn't completely true to the original origin story. In the comics, Uncle Ben is killed not by a carjacker, but by a robber in his house whom he startles. However, Uncle Ben's killer is always the criminal Peter refused to stop when he had the chance. The other events of the first movie could have happened at some point in the comics. Harry always did resent Pete a little for stealing Mary Jane from him, although Peter met Harry and Mary Jane in college, not in high school. The Green Goblin "died" the first time in the comics when he impaled himself on his glider as he did in the movie. But in the comics, Norman dangled Gwen Stacy, not MJ, from a bridge and Gwen Stacy died. Norman already knew that Peter Parker = Spider-Man a long time before this incident.
The second film is very different from anything I've read. John Jameson was never engaged to MJ; I'm not even sure if they knew each other in the comics. Doctor Octopus' arms in the comics are detachable and he has used this to his advantage against Spider-Man several times by having his arms sneak up on Spidey. They are not impossible to destroy as portrayed in the movie because they were easily severed by the Scorpion's acid on one or two occasions. The only element of the second movie that I've encountered in the comics is the concept of Peter temporarily giving up the Spider-Man mantle. There is even a very similar picture of his costume in the trash on the cover of that particular issue. However, this story only lasted one issue in the comics and felt more like a filler than anything. What I thought was really good about Spider-Man 2 was the way they portrayed him as a down-on-his-luck kid, struggling to juggle his lives as Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Stan Lee's intention was always to create a character that people can relate to, in comparison to the indestructible Superman and the wealthy Batman.
Hope this helps.

Answer 2

Actually a lot is taken from the actual comics in both Spiderman 1 and 2. There are definately some drastic differences as well, without going into extreme detail the biggest 3 differences in my opinion are:
1) he doesn't need web-shooters in the movies (they are a natural manifestations of his powers, not a science project he invented)
2) he was bitten by a genetically mutated/engineered speecies of spider, not one accidently irradiated at a science lab demonstartion (and there are several of them, unlike the comic book spider who dies shortly after being bitten)
3) in the comics, Mary Jane was not a girl he idolized for years, but rather was the neice of Aunt May's best friend, whom Peter avoided even meeting for many issues as they were trying to set them up. His true love was Gwen Stacey, whom the Green Goblin killed in much the same way that the Goblin tested Spiderman in the first movie when he told him to chose between saving the children in the tram, or the women he loves.

There are so many similarities that I wouldn't know where to begin. The comic you referred to where Pete gives up being Spiderman was Amazing Spiderman #50, and is a very sought after issue not only for it's classic cover, but also because it contains the first appearance of the Kingpin (of Daredevil fame).

So many aspects of the films are directly taken from the comics, which is cool because these writers and directors are honoring the original stories, but at the same time they can retell certain aspects with their own flair or spin. But in all, the most drastic differences are those that I already listed, and the jumbling of event sequences. I could mention some additional things about what I know so far from Spiderman 3, but I wouldn't want to be a spoiler.

Feel free to email any questions you might have to me, as it would be fun for me to answer in any amount of detail specific questions you might have about Spiderman lore.

Answer 3

Like any superhero movie, the copyright owner (Marvel, in this case) sells certain rights to use the character. This includes modifying the character and origin. Not unrecognizably so, but enough so that they movie studio has a clear claim on their own creative ‘product’. They will generally contract with the comic publisher to do a limited issue of the movie version. If it is popular enough, and will not work against the attempts of the studios to make sequels (that is all hammered out in their contracts, first, but it also depends on reader response) then the comic book may change subtly. Check out the way Peter Parker no longer needs to use web fluid for his mechanical web shooters ever since undergoing a ‘second mutation’

So, the movies have to be somewhat based on the comics, because they are licensed characters. In the process of becoming movies, they become distinct but not separate characters. (Superman of the movies is ‘like’ Superman of the comics, Batman of the comics is ‘like’ Batman of the movies, etc. You can’t expect them to be otherwise.) And then sometimes they begin to mutually influence and change each other.

15 DEC 06, 1930 hrs, GMT.

Answer 4

it's extremely loose, but they do use some of the comic books as guidelines and a sort of jumping of point, right before they make it more "realistic".

Answer 5

not much as i know. its kinda loose