When word broke that Spider-Man and Marvel Studios would reportedly soon be parting ways, many Spider-Fans fell into a predictable panic. The collapsed cofinancing talks between Disney and Sony mean that Kevin Feige, who successfully ushered Tom Holland’s take on the character into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, will no longer be involved in producing future films. Die-hard Marvel fans immediately threatened to skip all future Spidey films made without Feige’s involvement, while other devotees tried to figure out which party was to blame for the deal’s implosion. Even as Sony complimented Feige on his way out, the outcome remained the same: Peter Parker and Marvel Studios appear to be over.

But does Sony really deserve all of the skepticism it’s faced? As many cinephiles and critics have pointed out, Sony did release two commercially successful Spider-Man films of its own last year, without the involvement of Marvel: the Oscar-winning animated romp Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, and the Spider-Man-adjacent box office powerhouse Venom. And although Venom’s box office haul falls hundreds of millions short of the take Marvel Studios’ Spider-Man: Far from Home has earned, it was the highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all time—which is no small achievement, considering how many of those we’ve seen in recent years. So let’s take a look at Sony’s record with fresh eyes and see how much it really needs Marvel.

Thanks to the rotten haze that Spider-Man 3 left behind—we’ll get to that in a moment—it can be hard to remember just how solid Sam Raimi’s first two Spider-Man films were. Actually, they were more than solid; one could argue that his 2002 origin story deserves an A for that upside-down kiss alone. Tobey Maguire was earnest and convincing as a young Peter Parker, and brought a vulnerability to the character one may miss, now that Marvel’s quippy style has taken over the superhero landscape. This was a franchise-launching film that, at its best, felt nothing like a “franchise” film—a sentimental look at a young hero coming into his own.

Two words: Alfred. Molina. Raimi’s sequel put Doctor Octopus front and center, and although its approach aped that of its predecessor, the film managed to mine even more comedy and emotional depth from its characters—especially Peter Parker, whose college-age malaise and worry over his Aunt May’s impending foreclosure make the movie all the more relatable. Also, we have Spider-Man 2 to thank for vaulting Dashboard Confessional’s “Vindicated” to angst-anthem status—so if nothing else, we should say a big thank-you for that.

Well, you can’t knock them all out of the park. Yes, Spider-Man 3 was too cluttered; yes, it had way too many villains; yes, it fell flat on its face when trying to channel the previous two films’ classic blend of action and emotional weight. The film has a couple defenders—but as Raimi himself told one of them, “Yeah. You and my mother.” Retrospectively, the director has admitted that he didn’t really believe in all of the characters in this film—which, he posits, is why it failed. “I think [raising the stakes after Spider-Man 2] was the thinking going into it, and I think that’s what doomed us,” he said during a Nerdist podcast appearance in 2014. “I should’ve just stuck with the characters and the relationships and progressed them to the next step and not tried to top the bar.” Still, if the film had to fail, at least it did so in a somewhat entertaining way—for instance, by including that crazy dance sequence.

The main problem Marc Webb’s Amazing Spider-Man films faced was existential: whether they had a reason to exist beyond a simple box office grab. The heat around that question only intensified when it was announced that Andrew Garfield would play the role of Peter Parker, after an ongoing fan campaign to give the spot to Donald Glover—or any actor of color. Garfield proved more than capable of handling the part, and he and Emma Stone, as Gwen Stacy, developed believable chemistry onscreen (and off). All told, though, this film’s adequate execution could not overcome its by-the-numbers conception. It included some fun flourishes—like a slightly more mischievous Peter Parker and a few well-placed shots of his well-toned derriere—but overall, The Amazing Spider-Man was pretty forgettable.

As effective as this film’s emotional beats are—particularly between Peter Parker and both his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Gwen Stacy—this disappointing follow-up drowned them in far too many action scenes. Dane DeHaan made deliciously creepy fun of playing the entitled Harry Osborn, but like Spider-Man 3, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 tried to juggle too many villains—including a CGI’d Jamie Foxx and a barely-there Paul Giamatti. The film swung for the fences with a popular story line, but ultimately, killing Gwen Stacy also ended the best thing about the Amazing Spider-Man films: the chemistry between Garfield and Stone. It also killed plans for not only future Amazing Spider-Man movies, but also multiple spin-offs. And to his credit, Feige did offer copious notes on what was wrong with the film. So, yes—in this case, Sony really dropped the ball.

Not exactly a Spider-Man film, but it does follow one of the Spider-verse’s best-known antiheroes, so we’ll let it count. Venom had no right to be as delightful as it turned out to be—but with Tom Hardy on board in the title role, its entertaining nature shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. If you’re looking for gripping action sequences or, like, coherence, this film likely didn’t work for you. But if you, like V.F. chief critic Richard Lawson, are a fan of watching Hardy bug out, then it probably scored big in your heart. So perhaps more than any of the other Spider-Man and Spidey-adjacent films, this one might have actually earned the term “mixed” to describe its reviews.

Unlike Venom, which dropped a couple months before Spider-Verse, this animated eventual Oscar winner was a near-universal hit with critics and audiences alike. Its humor? Unimpeachable. Its hero? As Miles Morales, Shameik Moore brought wit and emotion in spades. Its supporting characters? Unforgettable—especially Jake Johnson’s washed up take on Spider-Man and John Mulaney’s Spider-Ham. With a visual style all their own, directors Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, and Rodney Rothman, along with producers Phil Lord and Chris Miller, created a hit that fans will likely revisit for years, if not decades, to come.

Truthfully, Sony has been robbed of the solid Spider-reputation it’s more than earned. Yes, a few of these films were duds—but as many a Twitter user has pointed out, Disney and Marvel have released a couple stinkers of their own. (Looking at you, Avengers: Age of Ultron.) And while some of Sony’s older Spider features are beginning to show their age, that shouldn’t diminish all that they accomplished—especially before super-verses were a mainstream pleasure. Yes, the Sony-Marvel pics were good stuff—but looking ahead to a future divorced from the MCU, Spider-Man’s future could still be plenty bright. And with several follow-ups already in the works, including Spider-Verse and Venom sequels, the character will be slinging webs on the big screen for years to come either way.

— How intimacy coordinators are changing Hollywood sex scenes
— The Crown’s Helena Bonham Carter on her “scary” encounter with Princess Margaret
— The Trump-baiting Anthony Scaramucci interview that roiled the president
— What happens when you try to be the next Game of Thrones
— Why are teens flocking to Jake Gyllenhaal’s Broadway show?
— From the Archive: Keanu Reeves, young and restless

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hollywood newsletter and never miss a story.