The reviews thus far have been very kind to the long awaited Spider-Man: Homecoming. Although Tom Holland has garnered a fair share of goodwill thanks to his spirited debut in last year’s Captain America: Civil War, the grumblings of “Not my Spider-Man,” are ever present even still, a week before the film’s release.
I myself, am an avid consumer of all things Spidey, from his adventures on Earth-1610, to the clone saga (the first one), to Spider-Gwen, to the animated series, you name it. As such, I enjoyed the Raimi films quite a bit – a near perfect amalgam of the cherubic 1960’s optimism that inspired Lee and Ditko, and the bizarre and earnest genre hallmarks that’s present in so much of Raimi’s earlier work. Its cast boasts as admirable a swing at their comic book counterparts as any other adaptation that comes to mind, not the least of which includes its star Tobey Maguire. Maguire makes a brilliant Peter Parker, make no mistake, but I am not willing to grant him the same kind of reverence many so readily bestow Christopher Reeve and Heath Ledger.
Maguire is a remarkable iteration of the wall crawler for the world and arc established by Raimi, but I feel that his portrayal of the character was also at times hindered by it. He’s sorta of one note by no fault of his own; it's just that trilogy was really telling one large story and because of that, only so many gradations could be afforded to the actors.
Maguire nails the guilt ridden, golly gee dweeb in a way that elevates those films to icon status, but fans of the comics already know Peter Parker can be, and should be, so much more than that.
Part of the the inherent joy that comes along with being a Spidey fan is the glorious nerd wish fulfillment. Peter Parker begins his journey as the mild mannered introvert, acted so expertly by Tobs, but soon transforms into the outgoing, albeit still corny, wisecracking vigilante genius. He never forgoes his nerdy charm; but it ultimately gets characterized more confidently. To me, the definitive on screen Spider-Man has to convincingly demonstrate that essential metamorphosis. Its vital to the character and the coming of age/puberty allegories that are so often saddled with him.
Moreover, outside of lightning in a bottle incidents like Reeves forever cementing the cinematic superhero archetype, Heath Ledger redefining the Joker so profoundly noone really wants to recast the role, and Hugh Jackman becoming so synonymous with Wolverine by way of rewriting the way these things get made in the first place, there really isn’t such a thing as a perfect comic to screen adaptation. Saying nothing of the physical attributes that are constantly changing in the comics (remember when Wolverine didn’t have a nose? Or when the Thing was decidedly Thingier after another run in with cosmic rays?) there are usually a thousand ways writers choose to characterize the attributes initially established by the creators.
To some, Andrew Garfield was a definitive Spider-Man. While I certainly didn’t feel that way, I’ve spent enough time in enough Spidey-verses to concede that the moody, irreverent fop presented by Marc Webb and Garfield does in fact exist somewhere in the comic books.
The Spider-Man that speaks to me the most is the one found in Amazing Fantasy #15 by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. He’s at once gainly and waggish, he’s earnest and marred by circumstantial tragedy. Look, I’m not saying Holland is the Spider-Man I’ve been waiting for my entire life, but I will once our official review goes up.
