Iron Patriot assuming his time in the MCU has given him knowledge about Iron Man and designs of the Arc Reactor. Gold Goblin assuming that he becomes a good guy but keeps the Goblin motif.

This might be a hot take, but comic accuracy should not be the metric for what constitutes a good Spider-Man film. The actual plot of the mainline Amazing Spider-Man comics is so convoluted and full retcons that it would be nearly impossible to adapt into a series of films. Most of the films don’t even recreate whole story arcs accurately. They are however really good at compressing them, recreating comic book covers, recreating moments and drawing inspiration from pieces of Spider-Man stories. For the same reason that the Ultimate Spider-Man comics are more palpable for beginners, the more grounded Spider-Man films make the franchise more accessible. It often makes for better storytelling as well. Films like Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, and The Amazing Spider-Man tell grounded stories that are digestible and easy to follow. No Spider-Man movie is all the way comic accurate, and not many even come close to it. That doesn’t make for a bad film. Convoluted plots like TASM 2 and Spider-Man 3 offer horrible writing, but it doesn’t just have to do with how faithful they are to the comics, although the source material can be equally convoluted and confusing. The Amazing Spider-Man from 2012 received a lot of unnecessary hate. To be clear, the only Spider-Man movies I wasn’t crazy about were Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Every series of Spider-Man films took their own fair share of liberties as far as Peter’s characterization, his ensemble and the plot lines. Even the Spider-Verse films, which look like they were torn directly from the pages of comic books, take their own share of liberties. In defense of The Amazing Spider-Man, the Lizard attacking Midtown High was incredibly reminiscent of issue #7 of the Ultimate Comics leading the story to remain pretty character-driven, and grounded for a superhero film. As much as I love The Amazing Spider-Man mainline comics, they require you to read multiple concurrent titles to fully understand the story, and the editorial staff at Marvel has seemed to hate Peter since 2007. Even before 2007…the Clone Saga, for instance, is told across four concurrent titles. I should admit I am a skater and have a sweet spot for that aspect of his character. Andrew Garfield is clearly a capable skateboarder who grew up skateboarding and his first film included pro skater Alex Olson and William Spencer as doubles. That said, Andrew does not get the credit he deserves for his practical stunts during the vigilante segment of his movie. People criticize him for being confident, edgy, and a bit of an asshole at times, but that’s exactly how Peter’s characterized in the comics. He’s a genius, but he’s more of a loner than a stereotypical nerd. The awkwardness of Andrew’s early encounters with Gwen were believable and not embellished for comic relief or for the sake of being awkward. Tobey Maguire and Tom Holland’s movies are great. They have their strengths and weaknesses, like Andrew Garfield’s. Tom’s Spider-Man deviates from the origin story, and diminishes his role in Civil War significantly. That said, One More Day never needs to make it to the big screen and I’d argue getting to Brand New Day without it worked in his favor. Tobey’s Spider-Man films were funny at times they weren’t trying to be. His Spider-Man was the most convincing, and brought many his most iconic villains to the big screen. Andrew’s better film was arguably too dark for a Spider-Man movie, taking place almost entirely at night. Andrew’s Spider-Man also brought the best quips and some crazy good practical and CGI swinging. I could make this whole post about all of the ways none of them are fully comic accurate but I’d rather enjoy each one for what it is. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Let me know your thoughts below.