Which was worse? [Archive] - The SuperHeroHype Forums

Herr Logan

03-08-2004, 04:23 PM

snazzy J

03-08-2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by WeeZiTe
It'd make more sense then saying that X-Men are... But eh, that doesn't take away from the badass=ness of Ock at all.. Yeah, he looks like a bad mother****er. I'm just saying that, if I was forced to pick one costume that looked the most Matrix-y, I would have to say his. But, like I said, that's with a gun to my head.

WeeZiTe

03-08-2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by I SEE SPIDEY
Doc Ock isn't wearing all black so no his costume isn't ripping of the Matrix and I didn't say the that the Matrix invented leather but more movies than ever did use it after it came out in 1999. Ock is wear a trenchcoat and sunglasses... Which Matrix made possible. He's also sporting tentacles that look like Matrix tentacles...

I'm not saying Sony stole the ideas.. I'm just saying if I had to choose the X-Men or Ock on reminding me of the Matrix, it's Ock.

Abaddon

03-08-2004, 04:36 PM

The GG's costume was definitely a disappointment.Hopefully they do better with Harry's.

snazzy J

03-08-2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by WeeZiTe
Ock is wear a trenchcoat and sunglasses... Which Matrix made possible. He's also sporting tentacles that look like Matrix tentacles...

I'm not saying Sony stole the ideas.. I'm just saying if I had to choose the X-Men or Ock on reminding me of the Matrix, it's Ock. Exactly. Also, the Matrix didn't invent black either.

Arcturus

03-08-2004, 04:49 PM

It's a mad, mad world.

Boom

03-08-2004, 05:32 PM

Matrix did not invent black.
Matrix did not invent trench coats.
Matrix did not invent sunglasses.
Matrix did not invent metallic tentacles.

Saying Ock's movie look was influenced by Matrix is bull****. Ock had that exact same look in the comics years before Matrix was even conceived in the mind.

As far as X-Men goes, I can't even see how that could possibly be compared to Matrix in any way.

Jspider13

03-08-2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by WeeZiTe
Green Goblin's costume made sense... If you were flying on a Glider 100's of feet above the streets and were in combat a lot wouldn't you want some sort of protection.. I still think it was goofy but, it made more sense then skimpy tights...

I STILL don't see why people make such a big deal about organics... How that could ruin a movie for someone is a paradox for me, but ohhh well.. Let trolls be trolls.

Yeah you're right. Sam said that his suit was designed to go into arial battle. However, the concept of the suit was great but the design could of been WAY better.

Jspider13

03-08-2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by arachnid-kid
Matrix did not invent black.
Matrix did not invent tench coats.
Matrix did not invent sunglasses.
Matrix did not invent metallic tentacles.

Saying Ock's movie look was influenced by Matrix is bull*****. Ock had that exact same look in the comics years before Matrix was even conceived in the mind.

Course I can't even see how X-Men could possibly be compared to Matrix in any way.

I've been waiting for months to read a reply like that.

I completely agree.

The Joker

03-08-2004, 05:39 PM

Jasmine

03-08-2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by WeeZiTe
Ock is wear a trenchcoat and sunglasses... Which Matrix made possible. He's also sporting tentacles that look like Matrix tentacles...

I'm not saying Sony stole the ideas.. I'm just saying if I had to choose the X-Men or Ock on reminding me of the Matrix, it's Ock.

I do not believe The Matrix had anything to do with Doctor Octopus new look, the filmmakers are just updating Ock's look from the comics. :)

WEB OF SPIDEY

03-08-2004, 05:42 PM

Goblin's Costume
and I've always wanted to say Wrong Forum

TheArtofShadow

03-08-2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by WeeZiTe
Ock is wear a trenchcoat and sunglasses... Which Matrix made possible. He's also sporting tentacles that look like Matrix tentacles...

Trench coats and sunglasses were a possibility in 1920. Um....the tentacles in Matrix were a ripoff of Ocks tentacles in the spidey comics. :o

I'm not saying Sony stole the ideas.. I'm just saying if I had to choose the X-Men or Ock on reminding me of the Matrix, it's Ock.

I can understand that. Afterall, the taste of froglegs reminds me of the taste of chicken, and they're completely unrelated in any kind of way.

snazzy J

03-08-2004, 06:22 PM

People, me and WeeZiTe weren't saying Doc Ock is a ripoff of the Matrix. We were just saying that Ock looks more like he's from the Matrix than the X-Men.

Boom

03-08-2004, 06:38 PM

Oh I'm well aware of that. I just figured I'd might as well make that post.

Why? Because I KNOW some imbecile is going to wander into this thread any minute now and go off on that ridiculous "Ock=Matrix Ripoff" claim.

snazzy J

03-08-2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by arachnid-kid
Oh I'm well aware of that. I just figured I'd might as well make that post.

Why? Because I KNOW some imbecile is going to wander into this thread any minute now and go off on that ridiculous "Ock=Matrix Ripoff" claim. I gotcha, I just don't want anybody mistaking one of us for that imbecile.

wagnerelli

03-08-2004, 07:43 PM

Where's the neither option? I mean seriously, the GG costume was designed for praciticality,NOT FOR FANBOYS! OH, and don't blame Sam Raimi and Sony for organics ,blame James Cameron who came up with the idea. (End Rant)

Super Saiyan

03-08-2004, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Kurt Wagner
Which was worse- Organic webbing OR Green Goblin Costume?

NEITHER...imo.

Although, the organic webbing idea is a bit disgusting, but still, it's quite cool in a way, imo.

DocStrange516

03-08-2004, 10:07 PM

If I were Spider-Man (and I will be, someday, once the experiment is done), I'd prefer the organic webbing, so I was apparently one of few who didn't think twice about it.

MST3KPIMP

03-08-2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Using organic web-shooters was a horrible mistake, and I know why they did it. James Cameron wrote a disgusting, heathen scriptment for Spider-Man that featured organic mutations instead of scientific prowess. Thankfully, they didn't let Cameron direct the movie, but they had his stuff on file. They intended to use mechanical web-shooters, but the props were giving them trouble. They figured "hey, we have Cameron's monstrous idea, and it would save on props, time, and it looks smoother." Lazy bastards. That's all it is, laziness. They had a way out, and they took it. I condemned them to the deepest pits of hell for that decision, but when the movie out, I didn't mind it as much as I thought I would. Cameron's scriptment put a lot of emphasis on the "man-spider" metamorpohisis, and Sam Raimi's movie did not. They didn't swell on it or make it overtly disgusting, so it went down easy and didn't make me vomit. Next to the bigger mistakes they made in the movie, their glossed-over webshooter bastardization looked like nothing.

The Green Goblin suit has a different problem for me. Instead of being badly conceived, but better in appearance on screen, it's the opposite. I like the idea of the suit and glider being a military contract for Osborn. However, their is no excuse for that costume. Why does it look like an alien costume, you ask? Because Sam Raimi is a punk in many ways, and one of those ways is recycling actors (including his brother), material, and designs. He directed "M.A.N.T.I.S." Don't remember it? Don't feel bad. Point is, it's a similar costume, designed very insect-like. I would much, much rather see the Goblin in scaly, rubbery, non-segmented armor with a purple tunic over it than the Power Ranger special we got treated to in 2002. An insane villain like the Goblin needs a face that has expression. They should have used prosthetics.
Don't go dissing the man-purse. It's classic, it's true to source material, it's functional, and it goes with his stocking cap, purple jogging suit and pointy shoes. Gobby's got his own fashion goin' on.

yesiree bob.. :cyclops:

Doomed_hero

03-08-2004, 11:26 PM

Never had a problem with organic. But i could never take Goblin seriously as a villian in that coustume. He just didnt look like someone who i would be scared of.

spider-jide

03-09-2004, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by arachnid-kid
Matrix did not invent black.
Matrix did not invent trench coats.
Matrix did not invent sunglasses.
Matrix did not invent metallic tentacles.

Saying Ock's movie look was influenced by Matrix is bull****. Ock had that exact same look in the comics years before Matrix was even conceived in the mind.

As far as X-Men goes, I can't even see how that could possibly be compared to Matrix in any way.

well said. Ock's been wearing trench coats and shades since the freakin early 60s before the wachowski brothers were even born. The wachowski's matrix movies are based on the principles of comic books and their characters and those machine squid things are definately inspired from the doc ock character. Doc Ock is an inspiration so for anyone to say that doc ock is ripping off the matrix is deluded.

spide-ed

03-09-2004, 07:55 AM

i liked them both

Dragon

03-09-2004, 08:59 AM

Of the two, the Goblin costume. As mentioned above, the webshooters, while ill-conceived, were so glossed over as to be unnoticable after the first 40 minutes or so.

The Goblin suit we had to bear for the entire film.

The Green Goblin

03-09-2004, 10:47 AM

I agree with Dragon. It was possible to block out the organics, but that "Goblin" costume was AWFUL and a huge disappointment for me.

I remember seeing the first spy photos on here and hating it. I remember thinking to myself at the time... they'll improve it... its not the finished result...

They didn't and it was. :(

Visionary

03-09-2004, 12:20 PM

THIS BELONGS IN THE SPIDER-MAN FORUM!

I'd cut your b@lls off....if you pigs had b@lls to cut!:mad:

taff

03-09-2004, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by spider-jide
This thread sucks and should be closed, what a waste. Stop dwelling in the past and move the f uck on and yeah it is in the wrong forum!!

At the risk of getting verbally abused, I feel the need to mention that I have been trawling these4 forums for quite a while now but only not long ago decided to write.
With that in mind, I have noticed that there are two main protagonists of abuse loose in these forums.
Spider-jide, you are one of them. This thread should not be here and he has already said that and apologised for it. You, however feel the need to vent your spleen on this poor guy. Abuse like that is not warranted in a case as trivial as this.
I've been witness to you doing this time and time again. What this amounts to is on-line bullying and don't you think you should concentrate your time on answering positively?
It would seem that the only way you can make yourself seem important and justify your existence is to try and make other people who post here feel small. If you don't like the theme of the thread just don't take part in it.
Perhaps if you had a little thing I like to call a life, you would not feel the need to verbally bash someone for trying to start a thread and join in on what is, after all, fun!
I'm not having a go at you, but it really has got to stop.
The other protagonist, I won't mention beacause his tounge is worse than yours.
Just wanted to make a point. Ta!

BrokenThimble

03-09-2004, 01:59 PM

The only part of the Goblin suit that I didn't like was the helmet. I mean, we saw the suit before he had it.. that test pilot was wearing it. But there was no helmet. And if there was, why in God's name would they make it look like a goblin's face?

So, I think if they'd made the mask different, something less robotic and more organic (like the prosthetics) then the suit would have worked better. All in all, I don't mind either of them, but if I had to complain about the goblin suit, I'd only choose the mask to get rid of.

spider-jide

03-10-2004, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by taff
At the risk of getting verbally abused, I feel the need to mention that I have been trawling these4 forums for quite a while now but only not long ago decided to write.
With that in mind, I have noticed that there are two main protagonists of abuse loose in these forums.
Spider-jide, you are one of them. This thread should not be here and he has already said that and apologised for it. You, however feel the need to vent your spleen on this poor guy. Abuse like that is not warranted in a case as trivial as this.
I've been witness to you doing this time and time again. What this amounts to is on-line bullying and don't you think you should concentrate your time on answering positively?
It would seem that the only way you can make yourself seem important and justify your existence is to try and make other people who post here feel small. If you don't like the theme of the thread just don't take part in it.
Perhaps if you had a little thing I like to call a life, you would not feel the need to verbally bash someone for trying to start a thread and join in on what is, after all, fun!
I'm not having a go at you, but it really has got to stop.
The other protagonist, I won't mention beacause his tounge is worse than yours.
Just wanted to make a point. Ta!

Look you, just back off and get off my freakin case! you know nothing! You claim to be lurking around for ages well if thats true you would know that 95% of my posts are all positive and very constructive. Quit trying to make a mountain out of a hill and fyi i do have a life, i suggest you mind your own business and stop concerning yourself withy me. Picking and pointing me out is you being so extra! There are more people here who are much worse than me by far! I suggest you get a life and quit watching mine jackass! I suppose you'll say this post of mine proves your point but i dont care your antagonising me so just leave me alone jackass!

taff

03-10-2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by spider-jide
Look you, just back off and get off my freakin case! you know nothing! You claim to be lurking around for ages well if thats true you would know that 95% of my posts are all positive and very constructive. Quit trying to make a mountain out of a hill and fyi i do have a life, i suggest you mind your own business and stop concerning yourself withy me. Picking and pointing me out is you being so extra! There are more people here who are much worse than me by far! I suggest you get a life and quit watching mine jackass! I suppose you'll say this post of mine proves your point but i dont care your antagonising me so just leave me alone jackass!
Oh dear....that told me!

Trance Sinned

03-10-2004, 09:46 AM

I thought the organic web-shooters weren't cool. The goblin costume I didn't have a problem with.

But the web-shooters, man! The web-shooters! I mean, come on!

spider-jide

03-10-2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by taff
Oh dear....that told me!

you d amn right you got told sunny-jim:p

Mr. Bill

03-10-2004, 10:30 AM

Maybe it's just me... but does anyone like the "updated" costume of Goblin's by that Humerto Ramos in that "Return of the Goblin" story arc? I thought it was pretty weak myself.

And on another note... I actually DO like Doc Ock's updated black trenchcoat, black sunglasses look from Ramos more than say John Bryne's ill conceived mechanical scientist design from the late 90s (see Chapter One) or Bagley's design of the character for Ultimate S. (But more on bad costumes later...)

I would hope everyone could see some influences between Ock's NEW comic design and some elements from the Matrix. BUT SERIOUSLY GUYS... this isn't a bad thing. Just like how comics can influence film (Batman's costume leads to Matrix costumes), film can influence comics... and then back again. So while Ock's tentacles may have inspired some aspects of the Matrix movies, those movies' designs may have in turn led to the development of alternate Ock costumes. I see neither scenario as being a blatant "rip-off." Although I think it's ignorant for people to disregard the large role Matrix has had in shaping aspects of popular culture (books, movies, etc.)-- I admit it, and I don't even like the films. But people should also not be so up in arms about the Matrix because it borrowed many of it's core ideas on alternate realities from the early Christian Gnostic religion and yada yada yada. So folks should cool their heels and accept that great ideas can be inspired. (i.e. Dr. Doom+ Darkseid = Darth Vader)

And regardless, I think the person who originally made the Ock=Matrix remark was just noting his view that he sees more influence from the Matrix for Ock's movie costume design than he does for the X-Men's movie costumes designs -- NOT that Ock is a rip-off. I personally think the Matrix was more influential in determining the final design of the X-Men costumes...

Okay that may have been a long rant about meaningless sheeyat... but I wanted also to see what your opinion's were about other dumb Spidey Villian costume redesigns. I'll list my top 5:

1) Ultimate Goblin -- why is he the Abomination? Honorable mention: Ramos's redesign
2) Vulture from Chapter One -- FOR THE GOOD LORD'S SAKE! Penguins wear tuxedos, NOT vultures!!!! Honorable mention: Young Vulture
3) Doc Ock III -- an all-green metallic Spidey-villian? I just don't think this works! JrJr can design better than this!! Honorable mention: Ock's Chapter One costume with the GOGGLES!
4) Mysterio -- granted that his first costume has a fishbowl for a mask, I actually think its so odd and unusual that it works! I think the "smokey-face" design from the Ben Reilly days is weak.
5) Mecha-Hobgoblin-- another fabulous idea from the 90s...

If anyone has pictures of these HORRIBLE costumes it'd be funny if you could post them! I think after reviewing this list we can all assure ourselves that there are far worse fashion-fates out there waiting to befall our favorite villians than Goblin's Power Ranger outfit from the movie.

:gg:

spider-jide

03-10-2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Bill

Okay that may have been a long rant about meaningless sheeyat... but I wanted also to see what your opinion's were about other dumb Spidey Villian costume redesigns. I'll list my top 5:

1) Ultimate Goblin -- why is he the Abomination? Honorable mention: Ramos's redesign
2) Vulture from Chapter One -- FOR THE GOOD LORD'S SAKE! Penguins wear tuxedos, NOT vultures!!!! Honorable mention: Young Vulture
3) Doc Ock III -- an all-green metallic Spidey-villian? I just don't think this works! JrJr can design better than this!! Honorable mention: Ock's Chapter One costume with the GOGGLES!
4) Mysterio -- granted that his first costume has a fishbowl for a mask, I actually think its so odd and unusual that it works! I think the "smokey-face" design from the Ben Reilly days is weak.
5) Mecha-Hobgoblin-- another fabulous idea from the 90s...

If anyone has pictures of these HORRIBLE costumes it'd be funny if you could post them! I think after reviewing this list we can all assure ourselves that there are far worse fashion-fates out there waiting to befall our favorite villians than Goblin's Power Ranger outfit from the movie.

:gg:

This doesn't belong here it belongs in the comics forum.

Mr. Bill

03-10-2004, 10:46 AM

Sorry dude... I don't like posting a lot and I usually just read the boards... as you can see I have 38 posts but have been here far longer than you.

So you guys can reply to my discussion wherever... but I'm sure some discussion of crappy costumes will ultimately involve a discussion of movie costumes..............!

spider-jide

03-10-2004, 10:48 AM

I agree with some of the points you made, stating that the comics and movies borrow off each other but you have to understand there are many dissapointed matrix fans who would have loved to see their precious trilogy rival the greatness of the second coming and will see that spider-man 2 will be a huge success and then rip it apart just because their beloved "matrix style" was incoporated into the spidey movie. Even in the 1st film where pete dodged flash's punch in slow mo and in the burning building scene where spidey dodged the razor bats in slow mo, a mass crowd of matrix fans *****ed about how spidey was ripping off matrix moves, can you believe that? Spidey ripping off matrix moves? What a joke, i almost felt like shooting them all in the forehead 3 times. Hardcore matrix fans are some of the most dangerous, angry and retarded people on the planet. They believe that nothing compares to the matrix and if anyone in any film sports black shades or a frakin trenchcoat its like "o my God, they're ripping off our beloved matrix movies, lets do everything we can to boycott seeing this movie and yadda yadda yadda".

If anything, if we play by their rules we could easily turn round and say, "hold on, in that case the matrix movies ripped off the 1st blade movie, blade was the 1st movie to use bullet time effects, he wore a freakin black leather trenchcoat and black shades".

God, its people who think that matrix influenced everything from movies to freakin dog food that realy pi$$ me off.

The Joker

03-10-2004, 11:03 AM

This Ock looking like the Matrix is starting to get annoying.

Batspider77

03-10-2004, 11:07 AM

I´agree the Warchowskis are the ones who where ripping from Movies and Comics from the last 40 years to create the Matrix Trilogy.

spider-jide

03-10-2004, 11:09 AM

exactly not to mention characters like ock were created before the wachowski brothers were even born.

Curt Connor

03-10-2004, 11:44 AM

The organic web shooters were definetly worse than the green goblin costume. (As much as I didn't like the green goblin costume)
As has bin said before, if takes too much away from the original spiderman character. The minute you take away spidey's web shooters, or Captain America's shield, or Daredevils club, or Wolverines claws or even change these fundamental pieces of the character. You don't have the character anymore.

And Spider-Jibe, your comments are some of the most immature and rude, I've heard on a forum. Why not respond with some intelligence, instead of using insults, and saying everything
sucks if you don't agree with it. (your living proof that some kids should not be taught computer skills). If you don't like the post or comments then don't read them. And regarding that your so worried where everything belongs...I'll tell you what doesn't belong here is your attitude.

Equint77

03-10-2004, 11:50 AM

I always wanted to know.

Which is worse???

MJ's red wig or MJ's red wig.

I don't know which one makes me want to throw myself in front of a bus more..

:mad: :rolleyes: ;)

The Joker

03-10-2004, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Equint77
I always wanted to know.

Which is worse???

MJ's red wig or MJ's red wig.

I don't know which one makes me want to throw myself in front of a bus more..

:mad: :rolleyes: ;)

Her wig wasnt bad IMO. I think she looked good.

spider-jide

03-10-2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Curt Connor

And Spider-Jibe, your comments are some of the most immature and rude, I've heard on a forum. Why not respond with some intelligence, instead of using insults, and saying everything
sucks if you don't agree with it. (your living proof that some kids should not be taught computer skills). If you don't like the post or comments then don't read them. And regarding that your so worried where everything belongs...I'll tell you what doesn't belong here is your attitude.

ok, first of all assho1e its, spider-jide with a "d", you know as in d for your a dumb-ass!
Why is it that all of a sudden i post something that i dont agree with and then people start breathing down my neck. How many times have others done it before and on a much grander scale. I dont go around picking or looking for fights, its people like you who want to wind me up, just knock it off already, its been settled and yet you have to bring it up again, go and get a hobby or something and once again as for my posts, how many times have i said a thread or a post sucks? If you actually opened your eyes and read most of my posts you will see that they are intelligent, has meaning and are very constructive. Dont try and label me because of a minor argument i had with someone else and as for me being a child, i'm 19 so how that makes me a child is beyond me. Even on this page alone i've made meaningful posts, i dont see the need to try and justify my actions to you because who are you to me? Nobody. So get of my case and let me go about my business on the boards. I have over 3000 posts and i'd say about 4-6 of the 3000 posts are posts where i have taken thing a little too far but like i said whats done is done, so can we now just move on already.

Equint77

03-10-2004, 01:37 PM

People.

Can't we all agree that Kirsten's snaggle teeth are the worst???

spider-jide

03-10-2004, 02:14 PM

And to further prove my point, curt conners and anyone else who thinks i'm being notoriously out of order, go check out the "Does Doc. Ock's tentacles look familiar?" thread, there you will find that others, (i'm not naming names, go see for yourself) are far worse than i am.

taff

03-10-2004, 02:18 PM

Quick message to spider-jide. If I went a little too far with my comments, I apologise. I needed to get it off my chest and I may have got a little to personal.
All I'm saying is...peace!
Like you said, it's been said and is history. The last thing I want is to create a history.
Friends?

Boom

03-10-2004, 02:22 PM

For the record, I thought Ock's trench coat was dark green. Where in any pictures or movie clips is he wearing a "black" trenchcoat? Did Matrix invent and copyright dark green trenchcoats too, despite the fact that they had none in their movies?

spider-jide

03-10-2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by taff
Quick message to spider-jide. If I went a little too far with my comments, I apologise. I needed to get it off my chest and I may have got a little to personal.
All I'm saying is...peace!
Like you said, it's been said and is history. The last thing I want is to create a history.
Friends?

yeah peace is definately needed and as for being friends, friends? Heh, this is the spidey boards, where we're all family dude.

Curt Connor

03-10-2004, 07:39 PM

Spider-jerk jide

Or whatever you call yourself, The reason your having fights with people here is becuause your buttons are so easy to press. It's not even a challenge

I'm sure you'll come back with another idiotic response and another rude remark you learned at highschool. And if you don't It's only because I had to spell it out for you.

Growup... Anyway I'm done with you.

spider-jide

03-11-2004, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Curt Connor
Spider-jerk jide

Or whatever you call yourself, The reason your having fights with people here is becuause your buttons are so easy to press. It's not even a challenge

I'm sure you'll come back with another idiotic response and another rude remark you learned at highschool. And if you don't It's only because I had to spell it out for you.

Growup... Anyway I'm done with you.

I'm not going to come back with a witty retort and humiliate you because if you hadn't noticed we've all moved on and you still seem to be playing mr antagoniser. I've made my peace with taff and we're good. So i'm going to leave you to go around pushing people's buttons, its your choice and no your not done with me, i'm done with you! End of discussion!

Curt Connor

03-11-2004, 07:17 PM

Well, spider-jide,

Finally, a response without name calling, obscenities or insults. That was really my only beef.

Your response was an intelligent one, and I respect that, and I think other people will respect that more as well, if you keep on that vein. No hard feelings. And enjoy your time on the forums.

PeterFan87

03-11-2004, 09:54 PM

I liked both.

Mr Parker

03-13-2004, 02:41 PM

Yeah I agree with Curt Connor.The organics were definetely worse although they both suck BIG TIME!!! Spider-Man without the mechs is like Batman without the batmobile,or Captain America without his shield or James Bond drinking a beer instead of the classic martini shaken but not stirred that he always asked for.Its just not the true represention of his TRUE character.I also agree with you Kurt Wagner that the goblin really sucked also looking more like a damn alien from outer space instead of a goblin with the classic purple clothing.Whats laughable is people here say the goblin from the comics would have looked silly on the screen like they think they are expert film makers or something,sorry but THIS goblin costume looked 100 times worse on the screen than the classic goblin costume does.so weak argument.

Peacekeeper

03-13-2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Whats laughable is people here say the goblin from the comics would have looked silly on the screen like they think they are expert film makers or something,sorry but THIS goblin costume looked 100 times worse on the screen than the classic goblin costume does.so weak argument.

It's their opinion of what would have looked better, but I think there was definitely a way they could have made the original GG costume look great on-screen. I mean, sure, there are going to be changes from comics to screen, that's a given. But the GG costume jus looked ridiculous, IMO. The same goes for the webshooters... there was definitely an awesome way to work them into the story but they didn't. Why? Maybe they're lazy, maybe it was budget, maybe it was personal taste, maybe it was to help the flow of the story on-screen better, or something else.

Going back to GG's costume... yeah, there are so many ways they could have at least made it closer to the original style, IMO. In fact, I might sketch some concepts for GG's on-screen costume and post them.

Am I upset about the webshooters? Yeah, I am. However they obviously aren't going to change it, and if they do that'd be a mistake now, IMO. I'm more concerned with how Ock's costume will look on-screen, because I cooled off about the webshooters a while ago.

Still, despite some possible problems with costumes, I think Spider-Man 2 will be better than the first;).

TheSlag

03-13-2004, 05:17 PM

The comic Goblin would of looked like a cheesefest... plain and simple. Would of destroyed the franchise before it even got started.

Edit: I wish they had gone with the body armor but let Norman decide to "amp it up"... adding his own "demented touch" to the military armor/weapon.

I would of liked to of seen the body armor with a more gothic touch to it.

LarryLegend

03-13-2004, 05:28 PM

Slag, good points

ps where's the money you promised for praising your ideas

Visionary

03-13-2004, 05:40 PM

I think you Spider-Geeks are the WORST, why, if it were up to me...I'd make you all gargle your own urine with a spot of honey.

WRONG FORUM!

I guess the Mods are on the toilet, again.:mad:

CLOSED

TheSlag

03-13-2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by LarryLegend
Slag, good points

ps where's the money you promised for praising your ideas

*checks in the mail... along with a little extra for your "prison sentence" ;)

LarryLegend

03-13-2004, 06:54 PM

Life sentance Dude.

Donald Thomas

03-14-2004, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by I SEE SPIDEY
Doc Ock isn't wearing all black so no his costume isn't ripping of the Matrix and I didn't say the that the Matrix invented leather but more movies than ever did use it after it came out in 1999.
Aloha,
While I fully understand the need for shininess in a costume for the cinematic effect, ATHLETES don't wear leather!! Super athletes that is Super heroes wearing leather is by far the most impractical thing in the world. Name one sport where the players wear something that does not breathe and once it gets wet is murder to move around in? Motorcycle racers wear leather, but they're on bikes not moving around on the ground(we hope for their sakes). As we look at the Olympics we see every few years, someone comes up with a better type of swim suit or track and feild suit which is designed to let the athlete move freely and wick the perspiration away form the body. That would be the logical material to use by someone as physically active as a super hero. Neither boxers nor martial artists, nor gymnasts nor acrobats wear leather. Where are some of you people geting your examples from regarding leather?
Spidey rules in spandex

Symbiotica

03-14-2004, 02:33 AM

"[...] Super heroes wearing leather is by far the most impractical thing in the world. Name one sport where the players wear something that does not breathe and once it gets wet is murder to move around in?"

Actually leather is very easy to wear because it actually does "breathe." What does not breathe and is a nightmare is any kind of synthetic leather, which is one of the most uncomfortable and unstretchy things in the world. If you sweat, its like being in a microwave and there is no give whatsoever.....

However leather would be totally unsuitable for superheroes (ahem, movie X-People, take note) because its 1. expensive - very 2. hard to repair or patch if it rips 3. hot, even if it does breathe. If you're in dark leather and the sun hits you, you get very warm very fast.

Not a good choice for anyone superpowered, I must agree, even if it does look great.

spider-jide

03-14-2004, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Whats laughable is people here say the goblin from the comics would have looked silly on the screen like they think they are expert film makers or something,sorry but THIS goblin costume looked 100 times worse on the screen than the classic goblin costume does.so weak argument.

No. You act like your some sort of expert film maker. I agree that the mechs should have been in the movie but i've gotten over it and i'm not going to be sad enough to be creating threads about it 2years after the movie's release. As for the GG's costume, i can see what the film makers were trying to achieve but it could have been much better. In Osborn's mansion there were gothic-type masks decorating the house, proof that Osborn has this facination with dark and gothic things and it would have been great if osborn had modified the battle suit and made it more creepy looking. If harry does become the GG in the next movie or in any movie i hope they use that approach and if for whatever reasons mechs are introduced in the up-comming movie, i hope the introduction works out well, that way all those complaining can finally shut up at long last.

Mr Parker

03-14-2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by The Sabretooth
Great. Another useless thread that has nothing to do with SM2.

And I don't think either of them were worst. If Goblin had wore the costume from the comics,it would have looked REAL cheesey and the movie wouldn't have made such a big success. Same for the organics. Plus, how do you expect him to hide his webshooters under his suit like in the comics?

Yeah whatever.Like MSTKPIMP has said so well many times before.The apologist mind has spoken.No matter how stupid their ideas are you go along with it.How sad.

Arcturus

03-14-2004, 02:52 PM

http://www.familyfirst.net/images/piggy.jpg

Hey Mister Porker, yeah you.

Hey pig piggy pig pig pig.

All of my fears came true.

Spam and flaming threads you left behind.

My little Mister Porker needed something new...

Orko Is King

03-14-2004, 08:09 PM

GG woould've looked better like this.

http://comics.toonzone.net/solicitations/2004-04/marvel/spiderman01.jpg

The Joker

03-15-2004, 10:31 AM

All the villains look cool in that pic.

spider-jide

03-15-2004, 11:35 AM

hmmm, i too have this pic and elecro looks pshyco.

The Joker

03-15-2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by spider-jide
hmmm, i too have this pic and elecro looks pshyco.

As opposed to the other villains who look perfectly sane ;)

Dragon

03-15-2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Orko Is King
GG woould've looked better like this.

http://comics.toonzone.net/solicitations/2004-04/marvel/spiderman01.jpg

It's a nice pic, but I don't really like the Goblin design. I also don't like the Vulture's wings being set on his back like the Angel's.

Ultimate Venom

03-15-2004, 02:32 PM

I thought the Goblin's costume was okay. But perhaps it would have benefited from being ever so slightly darker. You know,by just a touch.

bakerboy

03-15-2004, 04:05 PM

The two things were totally a betrayal to the spider man mythos. Both were annoying and unjustified changes with any reason. Power ranger costume was a total joke, but with the organics they rapped the character and made of him a man spider. Both were a sin for the true spider man fans. They are just ridiculous and absurd. Its hard to choose , but the organics were a little bit worse than the goblin costume.

Venom71

03-15-2004, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by bakerboy
The two things were totally a betrayal to the spider man mythos. Both were annoying and unjustified changes with any reason. Power ranger costume was a total joke, but with the organics they rapped the character and made of him a man spider. Both were a sin for the true spider man fans. They are just ridiculous and absurd. Its hard to choose , but the organics were a little bit worse than the goblin costume.
SO SAYETH THE GREAT BAKERBOY WHO'S OPINION IS LAW.....NOT!!!
MOVE ON PLEASE WE ARE 2 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND THIS IS GETTING BEYOND OLD NOW. FIND ANOTHER MESSAGE BOARD TO POST YOUR DRIBBLE AT PLEASE! THANK YOU, DON'T COME AGAIN.
SPIDER - MAN 2 WILL RULE THE BOX OFFICE THIS
SUMMER. OH AND BY THE WAY NEITHER OF THE CHANGES WERE WORSE...THEY WERE BOTH FINE AND MADE SENSE IN THE MOVIE! :spidey: :venom:

Mr Parker

03-15-2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Venom71
SO SAYETH THE GREAT BAKERBOY WHO'S OPINION IS LAW.....NOT!!!
MOVE ON PLEASE WE ARE 2 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND THIS IS GETTING BEYOND OLD NOW. FIND ANOTHER MESSAGE BOARD TO POST YOUR DRIBBLE AT PLEASE! THANK YOU, DON'T COME AGAIN.
SPIDER - MAN 2 WILL RULE THE BOX OFFICE THIS
SUMMER. OH AND BY THE WAY NEITHER OF THE CHANGES WERE WORSE...THEY WERE BOTH FINE AND MADE SENSE IN THE MOVIE! :spidey: :venom:

So speaks the Man-Spider fan.:D

Arcturus

03-15-2004, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
So speaks the Man-Spider fan.:D

Hey pig, yeah you porker. Hey piggy pig pig.;)

Herr Logan

03-15-2004, 07:21 PM

Mr Parker and Bakerboy: May I make the suggestion that you find a new topic about which to complain? Complaining is healthy and necessary, but it requires freshness to satisfy people's tastes. This topic is stale, and people of your level of dedication to Spider-Man can surely find a new flaw to discuss. You made your point, extreme though it be. I can't say I share your zealous hatred of the movie, but I agree with you. These changes were unforgivable. The people on this board aren't going to agree with you about this stuff now if they haven't already. You know you're right about the web-shooters, etc. If these people don't get it, then they just have lower standards and they aren't going to change. Find new flaws.

P.S.: I got banned from KMC permanently this time, so I'll be hanging around here from now on. I'm a baaaad boy. :D

Peacekeeper

03-15-2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Herr Logan
...If these people don't get it, then they just have lower standards and they aren't going to change...

If someone disagrees with someone else's opinion it doesn't mean that they have lower standards.

Herr Logan

03-15-2004, 08:18 PM

Look, I may not be as much of a fanatic as Mr Parker and Bakerboy, but I am uncompromising when it comes to making flimsy excuses for laziness and arrogant treatment of long-standing icons. I actually know why they used the organic web-shooters, and I don't buy any excuses for it. Maybe it's not right to post incessant messages that declare people "Man-Spider" fans, but the backlash these guys have received indicates a weakness in those replying, be it in their intelligence, manners, or knowledge of the situation.

I've dealt with many people who insist on making excuses for unforgivable failures made in movie franchises. They don't like to think about things much, so they eat what they're spoon-fed by a media giant that panders to the lowest common denominator. If you're going to act like that lowest common denominator, then I calls 'em as I sees 'em. None of these people have yet brought a valid argument to defend the flaws I've attacked. When someone does, I will recant my statement about "lower standards." Until then, my standards for an intelligent defense for organic web-shooters or Sam Raimi's spare M.A.N.T.I.S. suit being used for the Green Goblin remain uncompromising. My challenge is for others to either admit it was a failure to include these features and then move on, or give a cohesive and thought-out reason why it's okay. I don't really expect people to meet this challenge. It's been two years, and I've heard every excuse a low-standard fan has to offer, and I've forgotten more counter-arguments than I'd ever need to demolish the opposing argument.

Bleargh. Now I'm getting all ranty and losing my train of thought. I'm gonna stop now and let people move on to more worthwhile topics.

Curt Connor

03-16-2004, 12:20 AM

I think the description of Man Spider is pretty imaginative, and certainly more accurate than Spider Man.

Look at the differences in the movie and original…
Original: Webshooters Movie: No Webshooters
Original: Parker hired by Curt Connors and a budding Scientist Movie: Apparently Not even smart enough to keep a job with Curt Connors and is fired by Curt Connors
Original: Offered deal by wrestling promoter Movie: Ripped of by wrestling promotor.
Original: Uncle Ben Killed in House Parker doesn’t see him again Movie: Uncle Ben killed in Street Parker says his good bye’s
Original No hooks on finger tips Movie hooks on finger tips.
Original: Changed to Spider Man by Radioactivity Movie: Genetically mutated.

I’m still looking for Spider Man in this movie, Doesn’t seem to have anything in common with the original except the costume and even that’s bin altered. All I see is something else, might as well call it Man Spider.
I’ll go one step further I actually thought the villian in The Movie was a fairly cool villian. But it certainly wasn’t Green Goblin. Should of called him the Green Mech would of bin more accurate.

The point what people like Parker, Bakerboy and myself are trying to make is not to put down Spider Man or belittle these forums or peoples opinions but to wake the fans up. And ask the question how much are you willing to give up of your hero. How far are you willing to let Sony go? And are you just willing to settle?
If this happens I guarantee you the movies will not run long. They might get lucky using Spider mans name once or twice. But if they keep messing with a successful formula or character that has been popular about 40 years. It isn’t going to go very far.

spider-jide

03-16-2004, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Curt Connor

Original: Parker hired by Curt Connors and a budding Scientist Movie: Apparently Not even smart enough to keep a job with Curt Connors and is fired by Curt Connors

He didn't get fired because he wasn't smart enough, it was because he wasn't around and wasn't doing his job because he was too busy beeing spider-man.

Also, with regard to the rest of your post, you said your yet to see spider-man, with that logic, i guess we're yet to see a daredevil movie, we're yet to see an x-men movie.

how? Well in daredevil there was no stick to train matt murdock, i didn't see kingpin, i saw a huge black guy calling himself kingpin but that wasn't the real kingpin.

what about x-men, lets see, original x-men, beast, iceman, angel, cyclops, jeane, prof x.
I didn't see beast i didn't see angel, heck i didn't see rogue either, where's her super strength, where's her flying ability?, where was iceman? he was originally a snowman didn't see that, i didn't even see him ice up, how comes collosus doesn't have a russian accent?

There are so many changes when comics are adapted to films because thats why they are there. I'm not making up excuses but all i'm saying is, if you want the true works of the comic book world, go and read the comics, thats why they are there, targeted for comic books fans all over the world. As for the movies, they are not made and done exactly according to the comic because the films aren't targeting comic book fans alone, they are targeting people who know nothing about the comics too so changes are made to make things seem more plausible and understanding to those who are not part of the comic book segment.

Herr Logan

03-16-2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by spider-jide:
how? Well in daredevil there was no stick to train matt murdock, i didn't see kingpin, i saw a huge black guy calling himself kingpin but that wasn't the real kingpin.

The original Daredevil origin story did not feature Stick. The one thing I thought was generally unimpeachable about the Daredevil movie was the origin story. They made a hybrid of the original, but mixed it with elements of Frank Miller's rewrite. If anything, the thing that makes it not Daredevil is the fact that he let a rapist die on the subway tracks and didn't save him-- a decision I myself applaud, and I also applaud them for making a gutsy decision with the character, but it isn't strictly accurate.

They haven't really made a real X-Men movie yet. Brian Singer is only attached to it because it will make him a ****load of money and he sees a political tie-in between mutants and homosexuals. That's all well and good-- not to mention unoriginal and obvious-- but it's a horrible situation to have a non-fan as a director. He's twisting and abusing a franchise that has been loved by millions for decades. He has no love for the comic, and he has barely read any of them.

I use Singer as a contrast for Raimi. Raimi may have made some huge mistakes, but he is a true, die-hard Spider-fan. The movie is less than it should be, but it did stay true to Spider-Man's essence, and that is why I won't go so far as to call it "Man-Spider" (also because Man-Spider from the cartoon scared me ****less and I don't want to think about it whiile watching a live-action movie).

By the way, in the comics, I'm not so sure Peter was hired as a budding scientist by Curt Conners. I know that when Spider-Man first met Conners, it was when he fought and cured the Lizard, and Conners had not yet met Parker.

Jaguar God

03-16-2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Curt Connor
The point what people like Parker, Bakerboy and myself are trying to make is not to put down Spider Man or belittle these forums or peoples opinions but to wake the fans up. And ask the question how much are you willing to give up of your hero. How far are you willing to let Sony go? And are you just willing to settle?
If this happens I guarantee you the movies will not run long. They might get lucky using Spider mans name once or twice. But if they keep messing with a successful formula or character that has been popular about 40 years. It isn’t going to go very far. I totally agree. The movie should be renamed 'Man-Spider vs. the Green Mech'. I'm glad to see that people here are trying to open other people's eyes about the travesty that Spiderman the movie was. I also agree with Herr Logan on the X-Men movie travesty. I've been very vocal in the past at how much I think Bryan Singer is a total jackass and I really hope that he would not physically be able to ruin another X-Men movie. If Sam Raimi is a die-hard Spider-fan then he shouldn't have made those changes. Same goes to Singer. I'm not going to be one of those fans that say "I don't care what changes they make to my favorite marvel hero, I just want to see the movie." Daredevil was ok but a black Kingpin is wrong. Just like if they made J. Jonah Jameson asian. Or get Beyonce to play Lois Lane! Do I need to go on?

Jeckel

03-16-2004, 02:25 PM

I see the point with the whole..........tradition, thing, but seriously, think about it. If he had used web shooters, the would of probably been like wrist bracelets. You wouldnt be able to just have him pretend they are on under his gloves and they sure as hell wouldnt of hid them. Plus, how would a teenager, no matter how intelligent, be able to create a material that what, NASA scientists cant even replicate? I suppose, as I heard in an episode of Spider-Man the animated series, Spidey could of had his imagination jogged with the formula to the material when the spider bit him..........but I still think it sounds a little far fetched. I think when it comes down to it, the main problem with this issue is how practical the person is. And plus it would be kind of making Parker too smart. Sure, he is intelligent. But he isnt Reed Richards, it would make the public (which i think this is overused but true) harder to relate with him. And one last thing, fan boys and girls cant alone hold up a franchise. Mechanical webbing would of raised a few eyebrows in the reviewers eyes on the practical side of this film, which was one of its strongest points.

Jaguar God

03-16-2004, 02:57 PM

It could have been done traditionally. Check out the schematics for his web-shooters and you'll see for yourself.

Herr Logan

03-16-2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Jeckel
I see the point with the whole..........tradition, thing, but seriously, think about it. If he had used web shooters, the would of probably been like wrist bracelets. You wouldnt be able to just have him pretend they are on under his gloves and they sure as hell wouldnt of hid them. Plus, how would a teenager, no matter how intelligent, be able to create a material that what, NASA scientists cant even replicate? I suppose, as I heard in an episode of Spider-Man the animated series, Spidey could of had his imagination jogged with the formula to the material when the spider bit him..........but I still think it sounds a little far fetched. I think when it comes down to it, the main problem with this issue is how practical the person is. And plus it would be kind of making Parker too smart. Sure, he is intelligent. But he isnt Reed Richards, it would make the public (which i think this is overused but true) harder to relate with him. And one last thing, fan boys and girls cant alone hold up a franchise. Mechanical webbing would of raised a few eyebrows in the reviewers eyes on the practical side of this film, which was one of its strongest points.

It's completely irrelevant that it seems unrealistic that a teenager could create biodegradable synthetic webbing fired from mechanical bracelets. It's been good enough for 40 years, and they haven't changed it in the entire run of the series. Movie reviewers wouldn't like it? Oh, it's breaking my heart. Either they're writing Spider-Man-- a 40-year running popular character-- into a movie, or they aren't. I can look past it for the sake of enjoying other aspects of the movie only because they downplayed the disgusting nature of this change, but there is no valid excuse for this decision. You people think it's idiotic to complain for two years about this? How about those who ignorantly defend it? At least the complaints are valid. Not one of the excuses I've heard since the first mention of "organic web-shooters" has stood up to an intelligent analysis. It's pointless to defend something that's indefensible.

Jaguar God: if your biggest beef with Daredevil is that they changed the Kingpin's skin color, then you aren't the kind of fan with which most of us should be allying ourselves. If you thought Michael Clark Duncan wasn't right for the role, then fine. I was disappointed, personally. But skin color alone is irrelevant in the Kingpin's case. His origins weren't changed in the movie, since they weren't actually revealed anyway. It's not important, the shallow way this movie was written. Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane? Yes, that's an unforgivable betrayal, but only because that skank can't act and I can't stomach her. That, and it's much, much easier to find a Caucasian woman of Lois's size than to find a Caucasian male who look like the Kingpin. J. Jonah Jameson has a very distinctive look, so it would be sort of wrong to deviate by casting an Asian. The wrongest thing of all would be simply to cast anyone besides J.K. Simmons. You have to get your priorities in order.

Jaguar God

03-16-2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Jaguar God: if your biggest beef with Daredevil is that they changed the Kingpin's skin color, then you aren't the kind of fan with which most of us should be allying ourselves. If you thought Michael Clark Duncan wasn't right for the role, then fine. I was disappointed, personally. But skin color alone is irrelevant in the Kingpin's case. His origins weren't changed in the movie, since they weren't actually revealed anyway. It's not important, the shallow way this movie was written. Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane? Yes, that's an unforgivable betrayal, but only because that skank can't act and I can't stomach her. That, and it's much, much easier to find a Caucasian woman of Lois's size than to find a Caucasian male who look like the Kingpin. J. Jonah Jameson has a very distinctive look, so it would be sort of wrong to deviate by casting an Asian. The wrongest thing of all would be simply to cast anyone besides J.K. Simmons. You have to get your priorities in order. I was buying DD comics before you were born. There was only one Kingpin in the comics and he was white. And don't you ever make the mistake again thinking that I would even want to be your ally. My opinion was requested for this thread and I gave it. And Dennis Farina looks much more like Jameson than Simmons. Finally, if you think that skin color is truly irrevelant when casting a comic book character then you are not a comic book fan. Don't acknowledge my posts again, sonny.

Jaguar God

03-16-2004, 03:43 PM

By the way, there are white guys on the World's Strongest Man competitions on ESPN that are bigger than Duncan. Heck, Bill Kazmaier could have shaved his head and face and pulled it off. For those of you that don't know, Bill is usually the host of the competetion and he is a former winner. The studios only want to put someone in the movie that has star caliber instead of starting someone's career.

Herr Logan

03-16-2004, 04:10 PM

Well, I feel chided. I sure won't acknowledge that first reply of yours, old man, if that makes you happy. Except for this: Farina wouldn't have been as good as Simmons, and I said skin color only matters for certain characters. Being overly picky about skin color is sort of an old and outdated way to live, isn't it? Too bad wisdom was in scarce supply in your day, pops.

They should not be casting body-builders in roles meant for actors, period. If they had done the right thing and used computer effects to make the Kingpin look the way he looks in the comics, they could have used any number of top-notch Caucasian actors. The biggest problem was size, not color. The were lazy and they picked the biggest intimidating star they could find and made him gain 50 pounds instead of doing the work they should have.

Jaguar God

03-16-2004, 04:39 PM

I agree that CGI should have been used for Kingpin but I thought that would get shot down. So you think that body-builders shouldn't get roles? Who would you suggest play Hercules of the Avengers? Or Conan the Barbarian? There are body builders that can act and there are actors that suck. Farina is a far better actor than Simmons. Just because Farina wasn't in Oz doesn't make him a bad choice. Being picky about skin color is not outdated to me when a comic character is white then he should be white in the movie. Go ahead and call me a racist now, I know you want to. I hope someone makes a movie about your favorite superhero and changes his or her race, and then we'll all see if you come here and spread your wondrous joy about it. Anyways, enjoy The Amazing Man-Spider vs. "Octupus Man with tentacles that have minds of their own". And don't forget ugly-ass Kirsten Dunst. Couldn't they have found a real redhead that is hot?

Herr Logan

03-16-2004, 04:58 PM

So now you're ranting about "Man-Spider" and "tentacles that have minds of their own". Great way to bring the fight, pops.

I'm not going to dignify Man-Spider with a response anymore, because it's not a constructive point, and considering Spider-Man was a creature called "Man-Spider" in the comics and cartoon, it's inaccurate. I never condoned what they did to water down and distort Spider-Man, and I've stated so many times.

The tentacles presumably have independent AI that allow them to perform separate functions simultaneously, which is what they do in the comics. "Minds" of their own? Stop taking everything those non-articulate producers at Sony say so God damn literally. Why is there a panic over this? Why is there a panic over a chip "Doc Ock?" These are not accurate descriptions of the situation, so until you get a reliable synopsis, keep taking your pills. "The pink ones keep you from screamin'." --Abraham Simpson

I don't know enough about you to call you a racist, or much of anything. I don't believe in "race" among human beings. Until mutancy becomes an issue, it won't be real. If you believe in it, well, that says what it says about your understanding of basic human biology and the world around you.

All I can say is, it's puerile to be so admant about the skin color of a character that, if properly casted (or alter by CGI tech), cannot be mistaken for any other character. It's wrong to make Lois Lane look different than she does in the comics because her exact look is all we have with which to identify her. The Kingpin is supposed to be about 6.5 to 7 feet tall and three miles wide, so you know it's him whether he's white, black, or anything in between. If it's the main character, you can't mess with that. If it's a supporting character, you shouldn't mess with that unless the guy is as big as the Hulk and can be easily identified. With Wilson Fisk's personal history, it wouldn't change at all if his "race" were changed.

I believe in making small concessions to movie adaptations. Big ones are accepting organic web-shooters and leftover M.A.N.T.I.S. costumes with a child's Halloween mask used for the Green Goblin. Small ones are the skin color of an enormous villain and the fact that Peter Parker and Harry Osborn went to high school together instead of meeting in college. I'm not a permissive fan. Not at all. I just have my priorities.

Jaguar God

03-16-2004, 06:50 PM

what was M.A.N.T.I.S.? Was that a movie?

Herr Logan

03-16-2004, 07:01 PM

M.A.N.T.I.S. was a show Sam Raimi made a few years ago. It was about a brilliant parapalegic (played by Carl Lumbly, the Martian Manhunter from "Justice League") who built an exoskeleton that not only allowed him to walk, but granted him superhuman strength. At least I think I remember that correctly. The suit looked very bug-like, and not too far-off from the Goblin armor. Raimi tends to recycle his actors (including his brother) in his shows and movies, and apparently his costume concepts, too.

spideyboy_1111

03-16-2004, 07:06 PM

ignore this

spideyboy_1111

03-16-2004, 07:24 PM

ok before all of u go on a 40 day spew listen.. THESE MOVIES ARE ADAPTATIONS!!!... nothing and i mean nothing will ever be made exactly like there comic counter parts why? because in the movie world comic book movies do better with a realistic element. I know i would rather think of all the heroes i love existing in my world and thats what marvel goes for.. stupid things like peter being bitten by a radioactive spider is ok to change why? because every one and there mother knows radiation will kill you. also in the 60's they did not know all that radiation could do.. thus why in comics we have hulk, pheonix, fantastic 4, spider-man etc... Sure within the Spider-man movie things were changed deal with it. peter being fired from Connors lab.. why.. because he wasnt there all the times he should.. and if any one knows the spider-man comics its that thats what happens with peter.. hes late for work.. misses dates... "forgets" to do things.. all because of his alter ego... movies are never like there books.. people need to get over it.. sure the goblin costume could have been better... and ill give you that the webshooters wouldnt have hurt.. but it does not make that much of an over all difference.. why? because peter is still who he always has been... we know he is smart.. and i for one think some of the little changes with the story and plots make things more interesting.. the characters are 3 deminsional now... not 2D. There needs to be more support at time now. I for one would not want to see the same exact stories shown on the big screen... why? because it would be predictable.

spideyboy_1111

03-16-2004, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Jaguar God
It could have been done traditionally. Check out the schematics for his web-shooters and you'll see for yourself.

then why dont they exist for real.. the web shooter doesnt make the web... the capsules do.. and no one can create spiderweb yet.

spideyboy_1111

03-16-2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Herr Logan
It's completely irrelevant that it seems unrealistic that a teenager could create biodegradable synthetic webbing fired from mechanical bracelets. It's been good enough for 40 years, and they haven't changed it in the entire run of the series. Movie reviewers wouldn't like it? Oh, it's breaking my heart. Either they're writing Spider-Man-- a 40-year running popular character-- into a movie, or they aren't. I can look past it for the sake of enjoying other aspects of the movie only because they downplayed the disgusting nature of this change, but there is no valid excuse for this decision. You people think it's idiotic to complain for two years about this? How about those who ignorantly defend it? At least the complaints are valid. Not one of the excuses I've heard since the first mention of "organic web-shooters" has stood up to an intelligent analysis. It's pointless to defend something that's indefensible.

ok this is the same reason the whole world does not read comics.. and its not becuase they dont want to spend money on them... we read them for fantasy.. we can except it.. but again all i have to say is if the rest of the world wont pic a comic book and read it like we do then why would they want to see these movies? they have to be altered to be realistic. these movies are not made for the fans only. but to attract fans.

Jaguar God: if your biggest beef with Daredevil is that they changed the Kingpin's skin color, then you aren't the kind of fan with which most of us should be allying ourselves. If you thought Michael Clark Duncan wasn't right for the role, then fine. I was disappointed, personally. But skin color alone is irrelevant in the Kingpin's case. His origins weren't changed in the movie since they weren't actually revealed anyway. It's not important, in order. [/B]

ummm excuse me... i believe they were to an extent.. i believe his son was the one who left roses.. .u know.. "the rose" they added that tidbit into kingpin but kingpin in the comics does not do that.

spideyboy_1111

03-16-2004, 07:41 PM

The Amazing Man-Spider vs. "Octupus Man with tentacles that have minds of their own". And don't forget ugly-ass Kirsten Dunst. Couldn't they have found a real redhead that is hot? [/B]

ummm one comment to that... do u know how hard it is to find a extremely hot red head with deep dark red hair who has no freckles alll over her face and can tan? MJ is a rare beautiful breed.. i seriously dont think anyone could play the perfect MJ.

spideyboy_1111

03-16-2004, 07:47 PM

For those who want to see what the M.A.N.T.I.S. looked like was this.

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/mantis.htm

ironically... looks nothing like the GG

Herr Logan

03-16-2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
ok before all of u go on a 40 day spew listen.. THESE MOVIES ARE ADAPTATIONS!!!... nothing and i mean nothing will ever be made exactly like there comic counter parts

Heard this uncounted times before. It isn't much more valid this time around. You're making excuses for lazy writing and inadequate attention to detail. Are you really so passionate about lazy thinking that you would continue to defend this? Your case is weak, and it's less constructive than pointless complaining and nitpicking. Logically, nitpicking and pointing out flaws could potentially (not in this thread, but generally speaking) lead to solutions. Defending inadequacy does nothing to help, and everything to hurt. Don't bother trying to impress the point on me that low standards and lazy brains are the way to go unless you're in for a 40 day spew of repeating your inadequate argument.

Herr Logan

03-16-2004, 07:55 PM

Friggin' memory is leaving me faster than women and children off a sinking ship. That doesn't look too similar after all. If it wasn't M.A.N.T.I.S., then what am I thinking of? Probably Power Rangers villains or something as ludicrous.

spideyboy_1111

03-16-2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Heard this uncounted times before. It isn't much more valid this time around. You're making excuses for lazy writing and inadequate attention to detail. Are you really so passionate about lazy thinking that you would continue to defend this? Your case is weak, and it's less constructive than pointless complaining and nitpicking. Logically, nitpicking and pointing out flaws could potentially (not in this thread, but generally speaking) lead to solutions. Defending inadequacy does nothing to help, and everything to hurt. Don't bother trying to impress the point on me that low standards and lazy brains are the way to go unless you're in for a 40 day spew of repeating your inadequate argument.

obviously u didnt read my back up... u got that far and stopped... either that or u didnt pay attention to it.

Herr Logan

03-16-2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
obviously u didnt read my back up... u got that far and stopped... either that or u didnt pay attention to it.

Sorry if I made it seem like I didn't read your whole post. I did, but for the sake of space, I only quoted the first part.

I suppose I can agree that realism is good and predictability is bad, and that's why I said "It isn't much more valid this time around." However, I don't consider a genetically enhanced spider passing its properties along to a human through a bite any more realistic than the spider doing the same thing passing irradiated DND into the bloodstream. I'm not even going to look at that mangled sentence. Just trust me that it should make sense. I don't buy organic web-shooters that produce steel-strong strands from one's arm being more realistic. I don't buy the organic web-shooters, period. I can tolerate them if they actualy put some effort into the writing in the sequel and further movies, unlike the first movie. Otherwise, it's a failure as far as intellect and Spider-fandom are concerned. Special effects are nice, but I came to see Spider-Man, not Avi Arad's latest cash cow.
I refuse to acknowlege the idea that the characters in the movie are 3-dimensional and more fleshed out than the comic book versions. I realize that a long-running series offers time and opportunity that a movie doesn't in terms of character exposition and development, but that is not an excuse for writing bland characters. One single comic of Spidey's shows more character than the Spider-Man film. We got to see a watered-down, under-spoken, generic shadow of the character we love. There is no excuse for that. The only explanation is laziness.
Of course, there's also the issue of selling this crap to a wide, profitable audience full of pre-teen girls and non-fans. Still not an excuse for flattening and generalizing Peter Parker and limiting his dialogue and banter. Not by a long shot. He'll still be a pretty-boy, whether he talks like an intelligent person or whether he garbles the mushy tripe he spews at MJ in the slow scenes. He'd be more marketable if he was funnier. Funny sells. This absence was a mistake, and there is no excuse. Quirky sells, too. Spider-Man is incredibly stereotypical and generic in the basic ways of superheroes, but his character and dialogue is (or would be, if written properly) unique, and that makes him popular to all us geeks, and it would sell to the lowest common denominator, too.
I've had this debate too many times to count, and while you seem intelligent, you also insist on defending an indefensible set of failures. That's your decision to make. I make only small compromises for films like this, and basic powers (webbing), brains (Peter's a social moron, but his wit is sharper than Wolverine's pig-stickers) and personality (the quips, the banter, the utter disregard) are non-negotiable.
Low standards are what allows people to catch illness from food and heavy machines to malfunction. It's gotta stop somewhere. I'm saying, here and now, it's wrong, and I won't be swayed to think otherwise.

spideyboy_1111

03-16-2004, 09:11 PM

i read what u said and respect your opinion... your intelect is far greater then those like parker and bakerboy. and i agree there were mistakes... peters whit should be there and its not.. but lets not judge till we see the sequal. look how much x1 changed from X2... you can tell the actors are much more in to character and comfortable.. they can have more fun with it. so maybe spidey will have wit within spidey 2. but still the age old factor of the organics and the spider. genetics is the "radiation" of today if you will, we dont know its capabilities, where as radiation.. we know what it does now, so yes it really changes nothing.. peter still has his powers and its more believable... why? because with radiation we know he would be dead... with genetic alteration.. we dont. my biology teacher and i were talking about that actual thing one day.. and she told the whole class.. its very possible.. its harnessing it wich we dont know how to do. so its ok to assume that peter grew the glands in his arm. my question is why have the glands? when he could use his classic.. and comic acurate webshooters? there is really know good reason.. but they probably took into consideration this. Sure peter can make a webshooter... its just where and how does he make the web? Scientist today can't even produce a spider's web... as of right now the military is actually trying to genetically combine a goat and a spider so that way the goat when milked will produce webbing. but its has not been succesful as of yet. so how could peter? and i would imagine you couldnt make webbing out of easy materials.. def not house hold materials.. so i would assume for the amount of cartridges peter would make.. it would cost him quite a penny. so what im saying is that webshooters as they seem more probable then web glands... there really just as unbelievable with todays standards.

Jaguar God

03-16-2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Herr Logan
M.A.N.T.I.S. was a show Sam Raimi made a few years ago. It was about a brilliant parapalegic (played by Carl Lumbly, the Martian Manhunter from "Justice League") who built an exoskeleton that not only allowed him to walk, but granted him superhuman strength. At least I think I remember that correctly. The suit looked very bug-like, and not too far-off from the Goblin armor. Raimi tends to recycle his actors (including his brother) in his shows and movies, and apparently his costume concepts, too. Thanks. It's coming back to me now. I used to watch that. Carl is also on Alias and was in Buckaroo Banzai.

Jaguar God

03-16-2004, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
ummm one comment to that... do u know how hard it is to find a extremely hot red head with deep dark red hair who has no freckles alll over her face and can tan? MJ is a rare beautiful breed.. i seriously dont think anyone could play the perfect MJ. TWO WORDS: CASTING DIRECTOR! If old Sammy had a good one, then maybe Dunst wouldn't be there. But hey that's my opinion. My cousin who's 8 years younger than me thinks Dunst is hot. It's a matter of preference.

About the web shooters again. Young, intelligent people can create alot of cool things. You think that people today would not accept Peter making web shooters but these same people can accept that he got powers from a radiated spider? You're comparing apples to oranges.

And lastly, adaptations suck.

Curt Connor

03-16-2004, 11:33 PM

I know it's a reshashed topic, but I remember an interview on the space channel we get here with Stan Lee. And they brought up very briefly the question of the webshooters. I found his answer very interesting Stan Lee was referring to the producers or Sony quote.

"Well, I was told it's easy for people to believe someone can be genetically altered. But it's hard for them to believe someone can be really smart"

with a sarcastic smile on his face and they went on with the interview. And I think that really sums up the attitude of producers. Trying to guess at or satisfy the public without keeping the integrity of the character. Or much respect for the creator or fans for that matter.

Regarding alot of changes being made in the Xmen movies and daredevil, well, I'm not a huge fan of those characters, but a fan none the less, And I agree alot has been changed from the original comics, eg. Iceman drawn more like a snowman than an iceman in the really old comics (and I think hulk was originally grey). I'm not sure if Peter Parker first saved Curt Connor and was hired or the reverse. But the original Character of Peter Parker was always able to keep up his studies and scientific work despite being Spiderman which was a real testament to his I.Q. Which I feel was taken away in the movie, was the point I was trying to make there. (may not of explained it too well). Anyway, Small changes I think are good ...as the comics improved the characters later as well.

My only problem has bin when fundamental changes have bin made or trademarks of the character are changed, and important personality changes. There always has to be a line drawn somewhere, and this is what I'm trying to bring attention to. When you cross that line, there is no going back and you lose the character when you go too far

Jaguar God

03-17-2004, 10:48 AM

Thanks for that Stan Lee tidbit. And I agree on the fundamental changes.

Truthteller

03-17-2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Kurt Wagner
i know this is the wrong forum, I meant to post it in the spider-man forum, but I guess I was in this one and didnt realize it. Moving...

spider-jide

03-17-2004, 11:53 AM

Wow, theres a lot to digest here, there have been some insightful and thoughtful contributions to the discussion and i'm impressed with the absence of diving into childish comments and the such. I'd like to add that i'm not happy about the organics but i'll live and can accept that this is an adaptation of a character that has been around for almost half a century. GG's costume wasn't even a cosyume. It was a military battle suit and although it served its purpose, some of us fans feel it was a huge let down.
At the end of the day what it comes down to is, that IF SPIDER-MAN 2 IS A HIT AND DOES JUST AS GOOD AS THE 1ST MOVIE OR BETTER, then all of those that complain fall into the category of their efforts to be heard in vein.
Take spider-man unlimited the animated series, that was an adaptation of spider-man but it floped why? because it sucked, people didn't like it and if anything that cartoon show has o be the worst adaptation of spider-man in history, far surpassing the organics and anything else. The fact is the 1st spider-man movie was widely recieved by an audience who do not follow the spidey comics and most enjoyed it. Believe it or not but the success of the movie wasn't due to all the die-hard fans but it was due to the casual movie goer and that is the truth. Its been said before, the movies are an adaptation of spider-man and the movies aren't being made just for the fans of the comics but for those who simply enjoy watching movies or those who aren't fans of the spidey comics but fans of the spidey films.
If spider-man 2 is successful enough to do just as well or better than the 1st, then all those still complaining about changes this and changes that are wasting their time, efforts and lose any credibility their arguments may hold. It will prove that the formula for the 1st movie worked and can be used and improved upon.
I'm not defending the decision for using organics because i think pete could have had mechs in the movie because at the end of the day we're dealing with fantasy here but what i am saying is that those who know nothing about the comics will find it easier and more flowing to digest the concept that the movie has introduced. If mechs were to be introduced in the movies that would be great but you have to remember this film isn't being made to soley accommodate fans of the comics but to those who dont read the comics too and like it or hate it everyone here is still going to go and see the movie anyway so it doesn't realy make a difference, as long as the comic-book blueprint is in the movies then its all good and thats what the spidey movies have done so far.

spideyboy_1111

03-17-2004, 02:05 PM

agreed .. thats my thoughts put into words

The Green Goblin

03-17-2004, 02:25 PM

Well said Jide.

I like to think of the first movie as "The Dumbing Down of Spider-Man" for MASS consumption.

and since it did so well the powers that be could give a flying rat's ass whether some of us were disappointed in the organics, the Goblin suit and no Gwen.

Herr Logan

03-17-2004, 04:17 PM

I don't think that people should lose their credibility for simply maintaining their disdain and disapproval of the mistakes of the first movie. However, if they can't talk about anything else and insist on making it their life's work to preach to the choir (Spider-Man true believers) and try to pry open the eyes of the non-believers (the so-called "Man-Spider" fans... the ones who don't admit that it was wrong) with their rusty crowbar of truth, then they do lose their credibility, and they let their analtical skills deteriorate with no new flaws to dissect and complain about.

"Spider-Man Unlimited" may have been a flop, but it doesn't equal the failures of the first Spider-Man film (and I mean ALL the failures, not just the webs and green armor). The reason is, this movie is an adaptation of the original Spider-Man of Earth 616. That horrid cartoon was also, but it was clearly an alternate stoyline that took Spidey to places and characters far removed from the original story. It's not represented at the level a feature film is. I'm not sure how to explain this point, but I'm guessing you get my meaning. Terrible show, but easier to ignore.

I will never forgive or completely forget the makers of the Spider-Man movie for taking the easy way out and choosing James Cameron's web-shooter idea over finishing the assembly of the shooter mechanisms, but I absolutely do not support the idea of changing back to mechs at this point in time. I don't really care much about the ignorance of non-fans and their confusion over this change, but I think it should be avoided, and more importantly, the less attention given to Peter's freakish wrist mutations, the better. If they had used Cameron's screenplay, I'd actually go so far as to call it "Man-Spider" (although only once in a while as a derogatory comment, not every day in threads that don't lead anywhere), because they paid a lot of attention to it and how disgusting it was. As it is, I'm more interested in character protrayals and writing. When they get that right (and it will be Spider-Man 3 at the very earliest for this to happen, since the the "Smallville" writers did "Spider-Man 2"), then I may forget this transgression. Come on, you lazy, overpaid pig-*****ers... show me something good!

I vote that people stop reiterating why it was wrong to give Spider-Man orgnic web-shooters and make the Green Goblin look like a Power Rangers villain, at least as a primary focus of a thread, because all intelligent post-pubescent comic book fans already know for a fact that it was wrong and why it was wrong. The rest of you can go ***** yourselves. :)
In return, I ask that anyone with the urge to "explain" to us hardcore fans with higher standards than the average brain-dead MTV-indoctrinated teenager STIFLE that urge. You don't have a valid point, no matter how intelligently you state it. Laziness and carelessness with our favorite characters is not okay, and no true fan will ever think it's okay.
Let's all stop the madness and move on to pissing and moaning about newer and fresher failures on the part of the good folks at Sony and Marvel Studios. Comic books are supposed to stimulate creativity. It's not creative to harp on the same stale complaint for years, and it's not creative to defend non-creative people bastardizing a creative concept.

Rant and proposition over.

spideyboy_1111

03-17-2004, 06:12 PM

Herr logan... we agree on the fact that it will never be right.. but my only critisism is that u make it sound as if they didnt even take webshooters into concideration... when they did.. they really did.. many of us have seen the concept art.. the prototype and the test footage so they did think it over... but my only thing is they must have dug deeper for one reason and it wasnt lazyness.. im kinda still thinking its the web capsules... but i dont know.. thats somthing we will never know.. and with the prototypes.. etc.. we can see that they did try.. i think what we should be asking is why not.. what was the real reason?

Herr Logan

03-17-2004, 06:29 PM

They were having "problems" with the mechanical web-shooters. I read about this a long time ago. I say it's laziness because they could have gotten it right, but didn't. I'm supposed to believe the people who made a completely CGI Spider-Man who moves exactly the way comic book Spidey moves can't build a bracelet that looks like the billions of drawings of web-shooters we've seen? Bull****. To buy that lie is idiocy, and to defend their lack of respect is heresy. Okay, that was a nut-job word to use, but you see what I mean.
James Cameron wrote a horrible screenplay in which Peter turned into a mutant freak-baby with ejaculating wrists. When the hard-working and dedicated filmmakers were having "problems" with the web-bracelet props, they dropped the whole thing and used Cameron's insane, creepy idea as a cop-out escape.

The least they could have done is have him wear the bracelets when he has his gloves off and then they somehow magically don't make his wrists bulky when the gloves are on-- just like in the comics. It's a cheap visual trick no one buys, but it would have been faithful. Honestly, have you ever seen a drawing of Spidey with his classic costume and shooters where he doesn't have smooth wrists? For that, that I would make a big concession and suspend my disbelief, because as corny as it is, it's right off the page and it doesn't change his biology or take away his scientific genius. But he didn't even have detatchable gloves in the movie, did he? Friggin' things were attached.

spideyboy_1111

03-17-2004, 07:49 PM

i know how you feel but obviously it wasnt a design problem with the webshooters.. thats not the "problem" don't call them lazy when we don't know the full story. i still say the movies are the most accurate and best thing we have gotten to the comics thus far. So im happy... its alot better then waiting 10 more years for a spider-man movie to be made.

Danalys

03-18-2004, 07:04 PM

lazy. i'll tell you who was lazy. stan lee was lazy when he invented the webshooters. or maybe he realized that people could handle a person getting superstong, being able to stick to walls and having a spider-sense. But they obviously can't handle the thought of someone having a new organ caused by the same spider bite tho. Even tho his muscles would have to under go a similar transformation as well as his brain.

Someone asked earlier why they hadn't changed this in the comics if it was a bad idea in the first place. Well there's the reactions of people like you for one. there's also the fact that the horse already bolted from the barn and closing the gate just wouldn't work.

when i first read spider-man 2099 i thought wow this is the way those powers should have been done all along. The problem with spidy 2099 tho was Miguel is no Peter Parker.

stanlee maybe brilliant in ideas for powers and characters. but I doubt he researched at all how they should be implimented. It was acceptatable in comics at the time to just have some one invent something. Thus Peter Parker invented web fluid.

Herr Logan

03-18-2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by ph27home
lazy. i'll tell you who was lazy. stan lee was lazy when he invented the webshooters. or maybe he realized that people could handle a person getting superstong, being able to stick to walls and having a spider-sense. But they obviously can't handle the thought of someone having a new organ caused by the same spider bite tho. Even tho his muscles would have to under go a similar transformation as well as his brain.

Someone asked earlier why they hadn't changed this in the comics if it was a bad idea in the first place. Well there's the reactions of people like you for one. there's also the fact that the horse already bolted from the barn and closing the gate just wouldn't work.

when i first read spider-man 2099 i thought wow this is the way those powers should have been done all along. The problem with spidy 2099 tho was Miguel is no Peter Parker.

stanlee maybe brilliant in ideas for powers and characters. but I doubt he researched at all how they should be implimented. It was acceptatable in comics at the time to just have some one invent something. Thus Peter Parker invented web fluid.

I never advocated closing the barn door after the first movie. I just don't want to have to think about or look at the horse that bolted out of the barn.

Spideyboy, you still insist on defending those careless people. I told you where the line was between a discriminating fan with standards and a proponent of mediocrity, and you chose to step over it just to keep provoking me. That's you taking the label on yourself, willfully. I already suggested that people like you stop that candy-ass devil's advocate crap, and that people like bakerboy stop the monotonous threads about things they've already discussed for two straight years, but you just keep defending people's indefensible mistakes. Your choice. You're the one who's going to live your life as a permissive advocate who tolerates unnecessary and unreasonable failure. I'll probably die a miserable, uptight malcontent. But I'll be right. :D

spideyboy_1111

03-18-2004, 08:58 PM

Herr Logan, im not standing up for them, im not labeling my self you are. im stating my opinion the same as you are. My opinion is what matters and it matters to me as much as yours does to you. you say im standing up for people and if you take it that way then fine. But quit acting like your god all mighty and what you say is right. Your acting like a toned down version of bakerboy. I at least aggree with half of what you say and listen to your opinion i just think theres more to it then what we know and we should not be bitter over somthing thats not gonna change anything. But from every post you have made you act as if your preaching to a coir. Im not saying your wrong, or bakerboy, all im saying is people should quit bickering. I belive theres a logical reason why the webshooters werent right.. and i see both sides on why they would or not work... lets face it people now are far more intelligent then they were in 1963, and times have changed maybe spider-man should change with the times too.. they still maintained who peter parker is.. hes still smart.. we just havent seen how smart yet. sure ill be dissapointed if things havent changed in spidey 2... there needs to be the jokes... the wisecracking.. the intellegence... If they wanted the peter parker of the 60's they would have set it in the 60's.

Jaguar God

03-18-2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by wareagle
"The Dumbing Down of Spider-Man" for MASS consumption.
Well said. :up:

Herr Logan

03-18-2004, 11:07 PM

If I sound like a toned-down Bakerboy, it's because I'm at the end of my rope right now. Too much stress and anxiety. Thank goodness for Spring break. One more day...

I apologize if I sound extreme. I think even in a laid-back mindset I'd get real tired of this "theres a logical reason why the webshooters werent right" crap, real quick. Logical? Of course. That doesn't make it okay. How many times do I have to spell it out for you? This is the last time, if I have to amputate my own hands just to keep from responding to your meaningless, repetitive, wishy-washy posts: Advocating careless decision-making is wrong. It has real-world consequences in the long run. You are defending a way of thinking that is non-productive, harmful and that which demeans creativity in all of its forms. Go ahead and call this extremism and over-reaction. I've talked to hundreds of people like you, and worse than you, and it always leaves me feeling like the world is in the hands of people who don't care enough about getting it right. Not just Spider-Man and frivolous entertainment, but everything. You are part of a bigger trend; a trend that is dangerous. If you don't see the connection now, then just you wait until you have to make a decision that either affects others directly, or your own future is dependent on your ability and willingness to go the extra mile to satisfy customers/clients/fans/women/whatever. Just you wait. It's your integrity you're sacrificing by defending others' lack of it.

I'm going to go see the Spider-Man sequel. I'm going to see it, and I'm going to love parts of it and hate others. I'll probably walk out of the theater pleased as punch, with the good parts filling my head with glee. As time goes on, and with repeated viewings, I'll focus on more and more flaws in the movie, and they will matter more and more. This is how my analytical mind--one that likes things done correctly, and especially when there is every probability in the world for things to BE done correctly with enough drive to do it that way--works. I will love the watered-down, bastardized sequel of the watered-down, bastardized Spider-Man film, but when the euphoria wears off, I will be left with the whole picture. When something ignites my creativity enough so that I care about something, I care enough to want that something to be done right. I don't have the director's chair, so it's going to be done how studio whores need it to be done, because they are full of fear and erroneous ideas about what the public wants. I'll buy their product, but I won't sit quietly while wishy-washy, cerebrally-lazy, pop-culture addicted sheep tell me I have to accept it as is. Either you are that sheep, or you're not. I told you where the line is. If you choose to cross it-- if you decide to be that sheep-- then you can have the last word, because this isn't worth anybody's time anymore.

Kurt Wagner

03-19-2004, 10:53 AM

Great posts everyone. I'm glad that everyone is staying away from the insults. And those that did start the insults have corrected their mistake. And now we are back to a great discussion.

spideyboy_1111

03-19-2004, 02:12 PM

herr logan, why is it you that draws these lines though.. as i have said be for why is it you that is acting like the spidey messiah. all im saying is the movies are the way they are so live with it. you can be angered or slightly bitter from it, but there will never be a movie that could equal the comics. nothing will justify all that we know in the comics. personally i think that the organics was creative, but am i happy with it, no. im just greatful we have an exellent spidey movie. With every comic book movie there will be thing we fans dont like, and you know what thats ok, because ive realised that when media comes to play, fans get half of what they want and the rest of the world get theres. The only way we will see a perfect spidey movie would be if it was a independant film, and they may get alot right.... but indy films lack the special FX, which the sony movies have done excellent with. Im not standing up for any one and ive said it a thousand times, I have no reason to stand up for any one except myself and thats all im doing is supporting my beliefs just as you are.

and still organics were nothing compared to the goblin suit.... it could have looked alot better.

spideyboy_1111

03-19-2004, 02:16 PM

the goblin should have at least looked like this concept art

http://www.picturedot.com/FetchImageJPG.asp?ImageType=P&ImageFormat=H&ImageID=104287

it combines both the green and purple and looks much more darker and evil

Herr Logan

03-19-2004, 02:58 PM

I'm not going to respond to your continuued repitition of an empty point. You understand my point, and I understand yours. Nuff said.

On a more productive note, can someone please tell me why I can't see some of the pictures people post? Spideyboy, I can't see the concept art to which you are referring. Anyone know how to fix this? I have "Show image attachments and [img] code in Posts?" set to "yes," so I don't know what the problem is.

Danalys

03-19-2004, 06:08 PM

wow herr logan not only did you completely ignor the arguement of my post. you reply as if the horse that bolted i refered to was the movie organics and not the comic invented webbing as i ment.

i guess when you ignor any good aguements it's no surprise you complain about weak arguements you see all the time from people with no standards.

Herr Logan

03-19-2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by ph27home
wow herr logan not only did you completely ignor the arguement of my post. you reply as if the horse that bolted i refered to was the movie organics and not the comic invented webbing as i ment.

I guess when you ignor any good aguements it's no surprise you complain about weak arguements you see all the time from people with no standards.

I've been somewhat impaired lately, cognitively. I see that's leaked into my time-wasting activities, not just school. I apologize for misreading your post.

spideyboy_1111

03-19-2004, 07:11 PM

yeah herr... i can see uve been stressed... umm i mailed u the pic...

Herr Logan

03-19-2004, 07:32 PM

Thanks a lot, spideyboy. It's a creepy design that would have been much more effective.

Anyone know why I can't see all pictures and avatars, even though I have my options set to allow it?

spideyboy_1111

03-19-2004, 07:52 PM

yeah that was how he was going to look... but after making the first costume, they ran out of money. one can only hope that if they take the harry as the goblin look... they can make it look more like that at least.

Kurt Wagner

03-19-2004, 08:49 PM

My whole problem with the goblin costume was that it didn't even look like a military suit and yet they justified the changed for that purpose. Had it been a military suit, it would most likely be designed in pieces so that the soldier would be able to get in and out of the suit. A one piece suit would make it difficult in putting it one without another's assistance. Furthermore, there was no US Army logos on the suit.

So for me, this looked as silly as the original comic costume, but atleast with the original, the mask would look much cooler. Plus I once mentioned an idea for getting the original costume into the movie. It was somethign like the cotume had been a popular halloween costume and one day in the store, we see Norman having the conversation with the goblin costume with really is his other personality. From there we figure thats how the costume came about.

MST3KPIMP

03-19-2004, 10:45 PM

the real reason the goblin costume dissapoints is because its not even an origional failure. If the designers had tried something new I might gave respected that but instead they fused batman and alien to make a generic villian that neither engages or surprises. It stands as a reflection of the the lack of imagination behind the project and what lengths were taken to play it safe.

Herr Logan

03-20-2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Kurt Wagner
My whole problem with the goblin costume was that it didn't even look like a military suit and yet they justified the changed for that purpose. Had it been a military suit, it would most likely be designed in pieces so that the soldier would be able to get in and out of the suit. A one piece suit would make it difficult in putting it one without another's assistance. Furthermore, there was no US Army logos on the suit.

So for me, this looked as silly as the original comic costume, but atleast with the original, the mask would look much cooler. Plus I once mentioned an idea for getting the original costume into the movie. It was somethign like the cotume had been a popular halloween costume and one day in the store, we see Norman having the conversation with the goblin costume with really is his other personality. From there we figure thats how the costume came about.

To be accurate, we don't know for sure-- from only watching the movie-- if the suit was one piece or not. We never saw him dress or undress. It's possible that a one-piece suit would be easier to put on and take off, I don't know.
The suit wouldn't have the U.S. Army logo, yet, because the suit wasn't officially purchased by the government yet. Osborn had to prove it was useful first. I thought it was unrealistic that the government wouldn't want the suit and glider just because the General didn't like Osborn and the performance enhancing drug wasn't ready yet. As for the suit being a potential military device, I thought it would have been a good idea if the suit hadn't been so horribly conceived in its design.

I agree that your idea, if it led to them using the original costume, would have been better.

The Green Goblin

03-20-2004, 03:18 PM

The more time passes I can live with (deny) the organics, but the memory of that damn Goblin costume lives on.

Danalys

03-20-2004, 09:54 PM

Nice of you to apologise herr logan i feel i was a bit harse now.

Here's my thoughts on the goblin suit since i haven't said already.
It think it could have been greatly improved if it was quite a few shades darker. mat rather than shiny. and something porus like latex. Norman could have taken the suit then desguised or personalised it by spraying it with some latex and adding a dark purple tunic. it would be nice if that tunic was old damaged and dirty as well. the mask and helmet would have to be completely changed tho.

blaxdarkx

03-22-2004, 05:35 PM

I agree with whats been said so far the monvie betrade his charcter with organic webbing.I hate that even worse than the goblin costume because he is man-spider now.

spideyboy_1111

03-22-2004, 05:59 PM

o lordy.... dont tell me there spawning new sn's now...

Kurt Wagner

03-22-2004, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Herr Logan
To be accurate, we don't know for sure-- from only watching the movie-- if the suit was one piece or not. We never saw him dress or undress. It's possible that a one-piece suit would be easier to put on and take off, I don't know.
The suit wouldn't have the U.S. Army logo, yet, because the suit wasn't officially purchased by the government yet. Osborn had to prove it was useful first. I thought it was unrealistic that the government wouldn't want the suit and glider just because the General didn't like Osborn and the performance enhancing drug wasn't ready yet. As for the suit being a potential military device, I thought it would have been a good idea if the suit hadn't been so horribly conceived in its design.

I agree that your idea, if it led to them using the original costume, would have been better.

true. it could have been more than one piece, but the way I remember it from the movie, it looked like there was one big seam along the backside, so I guess that was the zipper. So thats just the way it looked to me.

Arcturus

03-23-2004, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
o lordy.... dont tell me there spawning new sn's now...

God save us!:eek:

spideyboy_1111

03-23-2004, 05:30 PM

i just dind it funny how people love x-men that was change way more then spidey was... yet when it comes to spidey they cant handle the changes... i will go along with them.. and adapt to them... but doesnt mean im ok with them.

Herr Logan

03-24-2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Kurt Wagner
true. it could have been more than one piece, but the way I remember it from the movie, it looked like there was one big seam along the backside, so I guess that was the zipper. So thats just the way it looked to me.

You are most likely correct in thinking the suit was primarily one piece. In the movie itself, they don't go into it, but as movie viewers, we can make our observations.

spideyboy_1111, I have plenty of complaints about the X-Men movies. My strictness for correctness in comic book movies knows no bias. I just don't know if I have the energy to even start in on this particular site on all the failures with which Bryan Singer and company filled those movies. Best to pick a spot and keep hammering at it until everyone agrees with me. Then I can move on. ;)

spideyboy_1111

03-24-2004, 06:14 PM

im happy with the way that the X-men movies came out... singer isnt doing the "by the (comic) book" movie.. hes taking the characters... in wich he has kept true.. and hes putting them here in reality.. and creating a whole knew world.. thats what all the movies have been doing... I dont have a complaint about one comic book character in a movie.. why? beacause they all have the essence and they stay true to the personality... every movie has stayed true to who the character is and what they would do.

Herr Logan

03-24-2004, 07:34 PM

This isn't the place for it, and I shouldn't let myself become entwined in a pointless and endless debate over the X-Men characters, but I think most people who read the X-Men comics understand that Cyclops, Storm, Rogue, Mystique, and Sabretooth, just for starters, were not portrayed in any way close to the "essences" of those characters that actually attract people to the books. They took shallow traits and ran with them. The good parts were left behind in exchange for a more generic movie that didn't have to take precious time from special effects and superficial romantic undertones in order to properly portray character exposition and development.

spideyboy_1111

03-24-2004, 07:36 PM

im not saying history... sabertooh (aside from talking), mystique, storm, and cyclops (besides firmer comand) they all acted as who they are... thats how those characters act...

Jaguar God

03-24-2004, 10:09 PM

spideyboy, if you're such a big X-Men fan then would it be too much to ask for you to actually try and spell the characters' names correctly? sabertooth? Get real, man. And your 'essences' theory really stinks. But that's just me.

Herr Logan

03-24-2004, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
im not saying history... sabertooh (aside from talking), mystique, storm, and cyclops (besides firmer comand) they all acted as who they are... thats how those characters act...

This is false. Like I said, people who read the comics and pay attention will know the difference.

spideyboy_1111

03-25-2004, 02:48 PM

yeah thats why comic fans alike still say that X2 is the best comic movie to date.

Herr Logan

03-25-2004, 08:06 PM

Ignore the bait, Logan... just ignore the bait...

spideyboy_1111

03-25-2004, 08:24 PM

all im saying is we are all never gonna get exactly what we want unless we do it our self... so just live with change.. thats what life is all about.

Herr Logan

03-25-2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
all im saying is we are all never gonna get exactly what we want unless we do it our self... so just live with change.. thats what life is all about.

I'm trying to be civil to you and the other people here. Please do not condescend to me. I'm above this kind of suggestion. I know what life is "about," and mine is not about simply "living with" dishonesty and easily avoided failure from anyone.

Arcturus

03-26-2004, 03:37 AM

Easy...easy....

;)

Jaguar God

03-26-2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
yeah thats why comic fans alike still say that X2 is the best comic movie to date. I'd have to disagree on that. I'd go with Blade 2.

spideyboy_1111

03-26-2004, 01:59 PM

just go look at one of the top ten fav comic polls... i know theres one some where on the hype.. always is..

Batman

03-28-2004, 03:25 PM

As much as I dislike the Green Goblin costume,I dislike the organic web-shooters even worse.Green Goblins costume is simply window dressing "pardon my pun." organic web-shooters,on the other hand,both figuratively and literally,change the core of the central character.

Organic web-shooters create an entirely new and different character, hence the term "Man-Spider" fits him more appropriately now.While the Green Goblin costume is nothing more than a fashion tragedy/miscue.:batman:

Hobgoblin

03-29-2004, 11:27 PM

I would have liked to have seen a Goblin costume that as closer to the comic version, but I can deal with it. I voted the costume. I really didnt care one way or the other about organics.

StylishHokie21

05-17-2004, 01:48 PM

They both were actually not that bad.

LordSimen

05-28-2004, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Using organic web-shooters was a horrible mistake,

I would like to take this opportunity to say I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the idea of Mechanical Webshooters.

It pissed me off when every episode of Spider-man and everytime I picked up a comic he'd "run out" and had to "Refill" It always bugged me. Plus if he had mechanical shooters you know it'd be buldging off of his wrists and he'd look like a retard.

I like organic much better.

And this "Man-Spider" busyness is just stupid. He's still Spider-man. He now just doesn't have stupid canisters attatched to his wrists. WOOPIDY DOO! YOU'LL LIVE!

MST3KPIMP

05-29-2004, 01:43 PM

you must have hated indiana jones whip as well.. perhaps if had been organicaly fused to his arm.

MR.Han

05-29-2004, 02:16 PM

GAYLORD

LordSimen

05-29-2004, 02:50 PM

Indiana jones is a normal human being not someone altered into a superhero.

Bad analagy. Plus, his whip never ran out. =P

Phoenix248

05-29-2004, 05:54 PM

i liked the organic webbing even though it wasn't true to the comics. it made sense: he was bit by a spider. he can crawl and has super strength and a spider-sense. even if he didnt have organic webbing , mechanical shooters wouldn't have been plausable IMO. he can barely make it home for thanksgiving and because of that Green Goblin realizes who spider-man really is. Where does he have the time (and the web shooters themselves) to make web fluid?

MR.Han

05-29-2004, 06:31 PM

Yeah the webshooters werent neccassary. I always thought they were annoying in the comics when Spidey ran out of webbing.

vengence

06-15-2004, 11:05 AM

I was okey with organics because I always wanted to see the man-spider on TV!!!:p

WhiteRat

10-30-2004, 04:10 PM

Organics suck the worst but yeah they both sucked.

kidtrunks69

11-24-2004, 09:36 AM

I think that the xeb was worres then green goblins costum.

spider-jide

11-26-2004, 08:34 AM

Its a no brainer, obviously both pissed off the fans but GG's costume was the worst.

Arahael

12-07-2004, 03:21 PM

They both suck and both were horrible changes,but organics was the worst change of them all because it completely changes his character even though people here deny that and wont face it.

American_Hobo

12-07-2004, 03:37 PM

They both suck and both were horrible changes,but organics was the worst change of them all because it completely changes his character even though people here deny that and wont face it.
what do you mean they both suck?

The Navigator

12-31-2004, 06:13 AM

I fail to see why EITHER of these is a big deal. Frankly, I was always more comfortable with organics anyway, because there's no way in hell those little mechanical pencil-lead holders could shoot out over thirty feet of line or goo, or whatever the hell he wanted it to be (all by, miracle of miracles, turning the nozzle). They never showed us how he rotated those damn things anyway, so why not organics? Even "The Science of Spider-Man" admits organics is a more plausible step to include in the transformation.

GG outfit. Yeah, it looked bad. The alternative looked worse and you all know it. There is no way in hell a guy in a pink and green outfit with booties, a cap, dishpan gloves, and outside undies would make an intimidating villian. He never has. Even Marvel asked if he looked "cute" or not his opening issue. Why is this guy number 1 at all? Doc Ock should CLEARLY--

Gettin' off topic there. Bottom line, each of these changes were welcome in my eyes.

The Navigator

12-31-2004, 06:15 AM

I would like to take this opportunity to say I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the idea of Mechanical Webshooters.

It pissed me off when every episode of Spider-man and everytime I picked up a comic he'd "run out" and had to "Refill" It always bugged me. Plus if he had mechanical shooters you know it'd be buldging off of his wrists and he'd look like a retard.

I like organic much better.

And this "Man-Spider" busyness is just stupid. He's still Spider-man. He now just doesn't have stupid canisters attatched to his wrists. WOOPIDY DOO! YOU'LL LIVE!

EXACTLY. People who say organics is just lazy writing apparently never paid attention to the blatant deus ex webshooter cycle that just kept spinning throughout the comics.

And even "Marvels" had to acknowledge those bulges.

The Navigator

12-31-2004, 06:26 AM

I would now like to take this opportunity to ask people that were disappointed why they wanted Spidey to be a carbon copy on the big screen as in the comics. I know I'm gonna get flamed for it, probably get called "ignorant" or something petty like that, but I really am curious.

If Spider-Man, to the letter, is what you want, then you already have him. Read Essentials, or shell out the big bucks for those back issues while pissing about how TPBs are the end of the business. The imagination (and the nostalgic past) is always better than what can ever be shown on the big screen--and the first "real" Spidey movie would pobably follow a comic-book storyline anyway. Just go back to the dusty long boxes and let your mind do what the CGI can't.

And don't feed me that line about "How you always wanted to see Spidey in the theaters." Because if you did, then you're either a liar or an idiot. The Spider-Man you know and Hollywood do not co-exist. Hollywood has a reputation for compromises,different directorial views, emphasis on "franchise."

In a word, change. Which is exactly what repels you. So--if you can't enjoy the Spider-Man movie, then I really suggest you write one yourself, fan-fic, or actual script to send in, or go back to the old issues and fond memories. The memory's always better than the present.

Let the good times roll.

LadyKayoss

01-18-2005, 03:19 PM

I don't see why organic webbing is such a big problem. I mean, spiders make webs, so why's it a big stretch to believe that Spider-Man can? I know it's not how it is in the comics, but there are some valid points brought up by earlier posters, such as when would Peter have time to make the fluid? And would movie-goers unfamiliar with the comic really believe that those tiny cartidges can produce so many of those big web lines?

My only real problem with the Goblin's costume was the mask. I understand why they made the suit armor, why they eliminated the cape and the shoes, why the mask is a helmet. But why couldn't they do something that would let you at least see his mouth moving? The whole Power Rangers effect of voices with no movement or expressions really bugged me. It's a good thing Dafoe and Maguire sound nothing alike...

WhiteRat

01-18-2005, 04:26 PM

The Navigator

01-18-2005, 05:09 PM

[QUOTE=LadyKayoss]I don't see why organic webbing is such a big problem. I mean, spiders make webs, so why's it a big stretch to believe that Spider-Man can? I know it's not how it is in the comics, but there are some valid points brought up by earlier posters, such as when would Peter have time to make the fluid? And would movie-goers unfamiliar with the comic really believe that those tiny cartidges can produce so many of those big web lines?

Yeah but there is no logical reason for the webbing to shoot out of his wrists at all.Realistically and logically the webbing should shoot out of his ass,thats the whole problem you run into with organics.Thats a weak argument to say that people unfamiliar with the comic would really believe that those tiny cartridges can produce so much webbing out of so many web lines.This is just fantasy we are talking about.They wont think anything more about that than they will of him getting the powers of a spider from a spiderbite.Its not a documentary.So you throw those laughable points out the window.The whole thing of spider-man is unbelieveable.:rolleyes:

Addressing this "organic" thing one more time....the reason a spider shoots webbing out of his ass is because that's the only place that can hold a spinneret, and it allows him to manipulate it with his eight legs.
Now, on Spider-Man, he's got a lot more room, so the spinnerets could go anywhere. And since the hands are the most-used manipulating tools on a human body, why not the wrists?
And there's a difference between "believable" and "deus ex machina." The synthetic webshooters had just that problem, as when they ran out (if they ever ran out) they almost always did it mid-swing or mid-battle. They never ran out at home when Spidey was trying to snag a beer and was too lazy to get up off the couch. If they wanted to make a more believable representation of a functioning mechanical device, then the webshooters should have been full of misalignments, rusty rotating cartridge system (at least, I assume they rotate, seeing as how the design seems to favor that of a gatling gun), corroding trigger mechanism, etc. I love Stan Lee and everything, but the synthetic webshooters, if he really wanted them to "fit," could have been a lot more problematic. And why not? Spider-Man is the signiature problem-ridden hero.
Of course, if you REALLY want to talk about where the spinnerets on a human would come out of, I'd say the nipples. Especially if it's Spider-Woman.

WhiteRat

01-18-2005, 07:49 PM

For Him to store all the webbing though to shoot out of his wrists he would have to have popeye like arms to be able to shoot it out so many great distances and that would not be possible without damaging many organs and veins in his wrists with his powered webbing in him.also spiders dont shoot webbing,they spin it there is no logic for why he would be able to shoot webbing great distances out of his body in the first place.Theres the problem you got with organics.and Sure he would have had problems in the beginning constructing the mechs but with trial and error he would correct all those things.Just because we use our hands doesnt mean when we go to the restroom it will come out of our wrists does it? No the ass is a lot more logical.Theres just no logical justification for them to be able to shoot out of the wrists.

The Navigator

01-18-2005, 08:05 PM

Slow down there, son. I never said it was possible. After all, you yourself said none of this is unbelievable anyway, so who gives a rat's ass (no pun intended) about possible? Even the mechs, and the whole idea of synthetically produced webbing is impossible.
And I'm still not seeing how you can make a case for it logically coming out of his ass when you've thrown logic out the window. Your entire argument is self-defeating because in the end, the only leg you have to stand on gets cut off--by you. If you yourself say that Spider-Man is an illogical creation, than you should have no problem with organic webbing spinnerets being in the wrists and shooting, not spinning, webbing. If you have no problem with believability, than you shouldn't have a problem with him swinging with intact arms and legs instead of a hand and some bones being left on the line (which they would with synthetic webshooters, if your grip didn;t fail).

In the end, I suppose, it merely comes down to personal taste. I prefer the organics, because to me, they make more sense instead of mechanicals, even if they come out of his wrists instead of his hands. He does, after all, have all the OTHER spider-powers...

LadyKayoss

01-19-2005, 09:01 AM

[QUOTE=LadyKayoss]I don't see why organic webbing is such a big problem. I mean, spiders make webs, so why's it a big stretch to believe that Spider-Man can? I know it's not how it is in the comics, but there are some valid points brought up by earlier posters, such as when would Peter have time to make the fluid? And would movie-goers unfamiliar with the comic really believe that those tiny cartidges can produce so many of those big web lines?

Yeah but there is no logical reason for the webbing to shoot out of his wrists at all.Realistically and logically the webbing should shoot out of his ass,thats the whole problem you run into with organics.Thats a weak argument to say that people unfamiliar with the comic would really believe that those tiny cartridges can produce so much webbing out of so many web lines.This is just fantasy we are talking about.They wont think anything more about that than they will of him getting the powers of a spider from a spiderbite.Its not a documentary.So you throw those laughable points out the window.The whole thing of spider-man is unbelieveable.:rolleyes:

*gasps* This is fantasy? Really? You mean, if I go to New York, I won't actually meet Spider-Man? *rolls eyes*

Weak my argument may be (I didn't see the need to make strong ones, since everyone in previous posts already said everything I was thinking), but in documentaries and the like, the makers of the film said so themselves that they were trying to make things MORE believable to audiences who'd never seen Spider-Man - trust me, I know 'the whole thing of spider-man is unbelievable.' It's why they cut down the length of Ock's tentacles, for example - once they got too long, they looked less real.

And don't think I'm unaware where webbing comes from in a real spider; a friend of mine and I were having a highly amusing discussion about that and Spider-Man.

Swordmaster

01-19-2005, 02:39 PM

I really wanted to hear Spidey say "go go power rangers when dodging GG's attacks.

The Navigator

01-19-2005, 02:41 PM

Yeah, that would've been fun. :D

The Lizard

01-19-2005, 03:10 PM

Even though the design of the GG armor annoyed some people, it didn't have an effect on the way Norman/GG behaved as a character.

The organic webs on the other hand took away some of what made Peter Parker a scientific whiz kid, as well as substituting a whole new batch of scientific improbabilities for ones we were already used to for decades.

So I say the orgs are still a worse spit in the face to fans than the GG armor.

blind_fury

01-20-2005, 10:00 AM

In the end, I suppose, it merely comes down to personal taste. I prefer the organics, because to me, they make more sense instead of mechanicals, even if they come out of his wrists instead of his hands. He does, after all, have all the OTHER spider-powers...
You bring up a good point. Why shouldnt Peter Parker have all the abilities of a spider. Well simply because the character is not meant to be that simplistic. Making Spider-man a spider-hybrid rather than a scientist given partial spider abilities who uses his human intellect to adapt technology that mimics a spider is a huge mistake.

To simplify the character by making him more spider-like does a disservice to the creators of the character and the fans. It would be like giving Wolverine bone claws in the movie because adamantium doesnt exist in real life. An important achievement of Peter Parker's was the creation of webshooters and synthetic webbing. This creation seperates him from mutants who are born with animal-like powers. It also links him with the villians in spidey's universe that mostly have MACHINES imitate animal parts. Such as dr. ock, who has MECHANICAL tentacles. The Scorpion, who has a MECHANICAL tail. Even the Green Gobling uses technology exclusively for weaponry. You see the villians are scientist who CREATED technological weapons the same as Peter Parker created his technological weapon, mechanical webshooters. This is not by coincidence.

What organics is, is a dumbed down version of Spider-man. One who simply grows webbing powers instead of a gifted prodigy who invents webbing technology. Why this change was made comes down to one thing. LAZINESS. Truely imaginative filmamakers wouldve found a way to give Spidey his trusty webshooters.

The Lizard

01-20-2005, 10:22 AM

What organics is, is a dumbed down version of Spider-man. One who simply grows webbing powers instead of a gifted prodigy who invents webbing technology. Why this change was made comes down to one thing. LAZINESS. Truely imaginative filmamakers wouldve found a way to give Spidey his trusty webshooters.

Yep.

Someday I hope to get ahold of that test footage mech webshooter scene and re-edit my own version of the 2002 movie.

The Navigator

01-20-2005, 01:23 PM

You bring up a good point. Why shouldnt Peter Parker have all the abilities of a spider. Well simply because the character is not meant to be that simplistic. Making Spider-man a spider-hybrid rather than a scientist given partial spider abilities who uses his human intellect to adapt technology that mimics a spider is a huge mistake.

To simplify the character by making him more spider-like does a disservice to the creators of the character and the fans. It would be like giving Wolverine bone claws in the movie because adamantium doesnt exist in real life. An important achievement of Peter Parker's was the creation of webshooters and synthetic webbing. This creation seperates him from mutants who are born with animal-like powers. It also links him with the villians in spidey's universe that mostly have MACHINES imitate animal parts. Such as dr. ock, who has MECHANICAL tentacles. The Scorpion, who has a MECHANICAL tail. Even the Green Gobling uses technology exclusively for weaponry. You see the villians are scientist who CREATED technological weapons the same as Peter Parker created his technological weapon, mechanical webshooters. This is not by coincidence.

What organics is, is a dumbed down version of Spider-man. One who simply grows webbing powers instead of a gifted prodigy who invents webbing technology. Why this change was made comes down to one thing. LAZINESS. Truely imaginative filmamakers wouldve found a way to give Spidey his trusty webshooters.

Perhaps. But remember that Peter in the movies was a pretty big brain on the science front, if those beginning scenes in both movies are any indication. Token scenes, perhaps, and there should have been more of them (particularly after he lost his powers), but they're there.
And villians who create themselves, at least the big ones you mentioned, didn't set out to be villians, if you notice. They were created in an accident--like Spider-Man. (Well, most of them. Now that JMS has ass-raped continuity, GG apparently's been evil from the start.)
True, synthetic webshooters would have been nice to see--even I won't contend that. But, as I said before, though I know it's not true to the comics (unless you count Spidey 2099), I simply prefer the organics. They just make more sense to me.
Thank you, though, for responding in an insightful and polite manner. Nice to see not everyone who uses the internet is an ass. :)

Spidergurl4302

01-20-2005, 01:42 PM

in the movie he was still portrayed as a nerd and really good at scenice (which is all the webshooters did when it comes to his character) and whoever puts this much scientific thought into where the webbing would come out, how does he shoot it, etc. is wasting thier time i mean its just a movie and spider-man is a fictional character i mean then you could say how are the webshooters not seen through his costume, how does peter afford them and have time to make them, how does one tube hold gallons of web, ect.

i get why some people wanted webshooters but i dont think it toke A LOT from the movie....

blind_fury

01-20-2005, 01:52 PM

Perhaps. But remember that Peter in the movies was a pretty big brain on the science front, if those beginning scenes in both movies are any indication. Token scenes, perhaps, and there should have been more of them (particularly after he lost his powers), but they're there.
And villians who create themselves, at least the big ones you mentioned, didn't set out to be villians, if you notice. They were created in an accident--like Spider-Man. (Well, most of them. Now that JMS has ass-raped continuity, GG apparently's been evil from the start.)
True, synthetic webshooters would have been nice to see--even I won't contend that. But, as I said before, though I know it's not true to the comics (unless you count Spidey 2099), I simply prefer the organics. They just make more sense to me.
Thank you, though, for responding in an insightful and polite manner. Nice to see not everyone who uses the internet is an ass. :)
The reason Peter Parker being so smart has been so interesting is how he finds ways to fight crime using his scientific prowess. He is always outsmarting his enemies using science. This has always made Parker a major force to be reckoned with. Who cares if Parker is smart enough to play classical music on the piano. Nobody cares unless he applies his smarts to crime fighting. This is an important dimension to the character thats missing in the movies. Webbing technology fills that void. Making Peter Parker a prodigy and a superhero, the way he was meant to be. :spidey:

Irony-Man

01-21-2005, 10:54 AM

Re-watching both Spider-Man 1 and 2, I've come to appreciate the organics even more. I always thought organics made sense for Spidey and when watching the web-swinging in 2 found that the organics contributed to Spidey's style and movements across the city. I also found that overall Spidey uses his webbing in an incredibly cohesive and co-ordinated manner (swinging, fighting, rescuing pizza) that fits in more with them being a part of his body's natural abililties than if they were a manufactured tool.

Kurt Wagner

02-02-2005, 08:33 AM

Organics never ever made sense and was only made to dumbify the character for the general public who were not spider-man fans. Peter PArker's mind is the very thing that completed spider-man's origina and spider-man's most useful weapon. It was his brain that helped him invent the web fluid... and it's his brain that helps him get out of situations when his web fluid runs out. THe spider bite only gave him strength, wall crawling, spider sense, and agility.... but his brain did the rest which is his real power.

Silver Sable

02-02-2005, 08:50 AM

None.Both were great

Head>On<Collider

02-02-2005, 02:33 PM

Which was worse- Organic webbing OR Green Goblin Costume?

I think I'd choose the green goblin costume because it look like crap and made no sense at all. If it was suppose to be a military outfit, then why the hell was it designed like an alien costume? The fact that there was no USA military logos on the suit anywhere made it look even less like a military suit. Plus the suit was one piece, which would make it difficult for a soldier to get in and out of teh suit without assistance.When I finally saw the pic of GG back in 2002 for the first time after an ungodly wait full of anticipation, I was very disappointed.
It took me watching this SM1 movie on DVD with my daughter a couple of times to get into it finally in spite of: the organic web, the mentioning of Betty Brant with no hope of her being any more than an extra, the soundtrack that couldn't hold a candle to Batman89's soundtrack (yet both are from Danny Elfman), and the fact that really, alot of the scenes seemed to resemble many of the same scenes that the dissapointing Batman Forever movie had. I expected much more out of Willem Dafoe and his voice he did wasn't what I was expecting. The GG outfit was supposed to be "updated" out of a supposedly brownie look so they say, and into a sleek look, yet, when I watched all the designs they had in mind for him, the ones they show in the disk 2 features, I kept screaming within myself "WHY NOT THESE ONES!" Those ones were far superior, plus they not only were more true to the original brain child of Stan and Jack, they actually could've captured the true essence of Stan and Jack's brainchild. The outfit was just a very very bad decision. I don't really have the culprit of that crime pinpointed yet, so if someone can fill me in on this one besides the obvious Avi, I'd be plenty appreciative. Thank you.

dos_acoustic

02-09-2005, 04:40 PM

When I finally saw the pic of GG back in 2002 for the first time after an ungodly wait full of anticipation, I was very disappointed.
It took me watching this SM1 movie on DVD with my daughter a couple of times to get into it finally in spite of: the organic web, the mentioning of Betty Brant with no hope of her being any more than an extra, the soundtrack that couldn't hold a candle to Batman89's soundtrack (yet both are from Danny Elfman), and the fact that really, alot of the scenes seemed to resemble many of the same scenes that the dissapointing Batman Forever movie had. I expected much more out of Willem Dafoe and his voice he did wasn't what I was expecting. The GG outfit was supposed to be "updated" out of a supposedly brownie look so they say, and into a sleek look, yet, when I watched all the designs they had in mind for him, the ones they show in the disk 2 features, I kept screaming within myself "WHY NOT THESE ONES!" Those ones were far superior, plus they not only were more true to the original brain child of Stan and Jack, they actually could've captured the true essence of Stan and Jack's brainchild. The outfit was just a very very bad decision. I don't really have the culprit of that crime pinpointed yet, so if someone can fill me in on this one besides the obvious Avi, I'd be plenty appreciative. Thank you.

Yeah i remember one design from the extras that had the armor-ish look but also had the purple...it would have been perfect

Lethal Venom

02-10-2005, 03:52 PM

:D :p :)

The Joker

02-10-2005, 05:08 PM

:D :p :)

Wow what an insightful post :rolleyes:

dos_acoustic

02-10-2005, 05:56 PM

:D :p :)

I agree with Ock...you have changed my whole way of thinking..I will now see the world in a whole different light..and for this i thank you...lethal venom

Lethal Venom

02-18-2005, 06:50 AM

lol sorry guys :) I was jst happy cause I got Amazing Spider-Man #50 :D

Lethal Venom

02-18-2005, 06:50 AM

It came free with the deluxe edition of Spider-man 2

Electro UK

02-18-2005, 08:01 AM

Id say organic webbing, I thought Goblins costume was kinda cool

The Lizard

03-03-2005, 10:19 AM

Seeing how this March is Herr Logan's one-year anniversary (as "Herr Logan" that is- don't know about other aliases ;) ), I thought I'd bump what must have been one of his first posts here--

{March 8, 2004}
Using organic web-shooters was a horrible mistake, and I know why they did it. James Cameron wrote a disgusting, heathen scriptment for Spider-Man that featured organic mutations instead of scientific prowess. Thankfully, they didn't let Cameron direct the movie, but they had his stuff on file. They intended to use mechanical web-shooters, but the props were giving them trouble. They figured "hey, we have Cameron's monstrous idea, and it would save on props, time, and it looks smoother." Lazy bastards. That's all it is, laziness. They had a way out, and they took it. I condemned them to the deepest pits of hell for that decision, but when the movie out, I didn't mind it as much as I thought I would. Cameron's scriptment put a lot of emphasis on the "man-spider" metamorpohisis, and Sam Raimi's movie did not. They didn't swell on it or make it overtly disgusting, so it went down easy and didn't make me vomit. Next to the bigger mistakes they made in the movie, their glossed-over webshooter bastardization looked like nothing.

The Green Goblin suit has a different problem for me. Instead of being badly conceived, but better in appearance on screen, it's the opposite. I like the idea of the suit and glider being a military contract for Osborn. However, their is no excuse for that costume. Why does it look like an alien costume, you ask? Because Sam Raimi is a punk in many ways, and one of those ways is recycling actors (including his brother), material, and designs. He directed "M.A.N.T.I.S." Don't remember it? Don't feel bad. Point is, it's a similar costume, designed very insect-like. I would much, much rather see the Goblin in scaly, rubbery, non-segmented armor with a purple tunic over it than the Power Ranger special we got treated to in 2002. An insane villain like the Goblin needs a face that has expression. They should have used prosthetics.
Don't go dissing the man-purse. It's classic, it's true to source material, it's functional, and it goes with his stocking cap, purple jogging suit and pointy shoes. Gobby's got his own fashion goin' on.

The shape of things to come....:D:up:

Sam Fisher

03-06-2005, 02:10 AM

They must have gotten Goblin's coustume from a Halloween store or something:D

CConn

03-06-2005, 04:55 AM

I never minded the webbing change at all; I can sorta see how it could help the story without...

Goblin's Costume...though it never bothered me to a major extent. :o

...no, I'm not a purist. :D

neobido9999

03-28-2005, 02:13 PM

the goblin outfit was poor, mainly because of the EXTREMELY BIG MASK.

organic webbing was totally fine by me

muhammady

04-16-2005, 03:22 PM

If you ask me liked both of them but they could have just gave the Goblin his original costume.The organic webbing doesn't bother me because how is he supposed to fight with no webs.Webshooters are ok but organic webbing is better.The thing about Goblin's costume is that it doesn't resemble the classic one at all although I kinda like it.

Saph

04-17-2005, 03:19 PM

And how ridiculous would yellow spandex on screen?
About as ridiculous as Red and Blue spandex would.. oh wait, that looked good. :rolleyes:

What people seem to be forgetting is that with the right materials and ideas, you can make a campy suit look cool and 'modern'. With Spider-Man's costume being the example.

As for the thread topic, Green Goblin is a lot worse than organics to me. I always wondered why Spidey couldn't make his own web anyway.

The Green Goblin suit was bad. It wasn't the concept that was horrendous, it was the mask. It looked like something off a cheap japanese TV show, or a Power Rangers villain. I one saw a Power Rangers bad guy with an armoured suit and static mask and I immediately thought.. Green Goblin. Not to mention the fact he sounded like a demonic Bugs Bunny.

Zev

04-17-2005, 03:40 PM

Seeing how this March is Herr Logan's one-year anniversary (as "Herr Logan" that is- don't know about other aliases ;) ), I thought I'd bump what must have been one of his first posts here--

The shape of things to come....:D:up:

Hey, I remember M.A.N.T.I.S.! It was about that black dude in a wheelchair who could walk when he put on a suit of armor, right? Man, remember that episode where he fought the jellyfish woman? And he had a flying car, I think! Once he used it to travel forward in time or something. I don't know. THAT WAS AN AWESOME SHOW!

Sorry.

In all honesty, Herr should try *****ing out Smallville for a change. His deep bitterness (http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=2228538) would serve him well. Unleash the Dark Side of the Force upon Smallville, Herr, and you will achieve a power greater than any hatur!

HillValley85

05-09-2005, 10:21 AM

Well, I like both of them, but the goblin costume did need a few polishes.

spider-jide

05-09-2005, 12:03 PM

None.Both were great

Organic I can get over but the goblin costume was horrendous. The concept of its use was clever and bears meaning but the overall actual design was shoddy. It was not great.

Kurt Wagner

05-22-2005, 10:21 PM

I think most people can get over organics because even if one doesn't agree with the change, at least in the end it makes sense in the film's version of spidey's character.

But the goblin costume made no sense at all to say that alien costume was a military flight suit. It would have made just as much sense using the original comic costume and having no justification for how that was made. Just curious, does anyone know if they explained the origin of the goblin costume in the comics?

blind_fury

05-22-2005, 10:38 PM

To anyone who has fully processed the coolness of mechanical webshooters, organics are simply unacceptable.

Zues4Life

05-31-2005, 06:35 PM

I liked Goblin's costume and I liked organic webbing too but I'd rather have wanted to see webshooters.We would have seen more scenes were he runs out of webbing like in Spider-Man 2 when Spidey was fighting Doc Ock in the bank.

If Harry is going to become the Hobgoblin in Spidey 3,they should keep the original costume.

El Payaso

06-10-2005, 07:08 PM

Goblin's suit was crappy cheesy and nothing like the halloween-esque comics one. And those lil pumpkins weren't pumpkins either.

Chris Wallace

06-10-2005, 07:56 PM

POWdER-man

06-10-2005, 09:36 PM

Goblin's costume... no doubt.

Dark Phantom

06-11-2005, 11:45 AM

Again with the GG costume! I can't stand it! All you major fanboys complain about this costume, when myself and my friends thought it was way better than the comics. It made sense. I don't care what kind of costume they chose. I like the one we are stuck with, so please get over it. It's great the way it is.

spider-jide

06-11-2005, 12:46 PM

Jeez man, both sucked.

Can you guess what Raimi did to solidify his lame-ass excuse for peter not being intelligent enough to create web-shooters? Answer. SM2, "Rain drops keep falling on my head montage". Raimi sanctioned the pathetic scene of Peter not being able to even fix a freakin bicycle wheel. So with that, how on earth are we expected to believe pete can create an advanced mechanical device that can fire out strands of webbing. Thank you so very much Raimi for your mediocre and silly additions to spoil the potential of the spidey movies truelly being great.

The Navigator

06-12-2005, 01:12 AM

I'm always interested in complaints over changes that, for the most part, are really cosmetic (well, save Peter's intelligence, but I have doubts about those in the comic book, too). It's just like the Star Wars section, but.....different. Somehow.

;)

El Payaso

06-12-2005, 01:44 AM

Can you guess what Raimi did to solidify his lame-ass excuse for peter not being intelligent enough to create web-shooters? Answer. SM2, "Rain drops keep falling on my head montage". Raimi sanctioned the pathetic scene of Peter not being able to even fix a freakin bicycle wheel.

Raimi's politics for Spidey movies: everything for an audiences laugh.

The Navigator

06-12-2005, 04:04 AM

Just because Peter is scientifically inclined does not necessarily mean he's mechanically inclined. Although the two can often go together--and they did in the comics--they do not go together here.

Although, frankly, I think being mechanically inclined takes away from his nerdiness, but that's me.

spider-jide

06-13-2005, 03:25 AM

Not being mechanically inclined? Its a freakin bycicle wheel not a rocket engine. Of all the clever geeks into science on a hardcore level that I know of, they know how to create, build and devise some sort of mechanical device, a bicycle wheel is merely elemetry. If we're expected to believe that pete can create and design his costume, how the hell can he not fix a bicycle wheel. The webshooters should have been in the movies as far as i'm concerend and there isn't a single excuse that anyone can come up with that I cant counter.

dos_acoustic

06-13-2005, 03:31 AM

Ok i could never understand something...the excuse for the horrible Goblin Cosutme was that it was more realistic...right? Sure the military armor makes sense but i dont understand the mask...so after Norman goes insane he runs off and makes a mask to match his armor? That seems as realistic as running off and making a purple and green suit with a much creepier mask! They could have used the original costume and they know they could have....

spider-jide

06-13-2005, 06:22 PM

Really and truelly, appparantly, Raimi ran out of financial resources to follow through with the better design of the goblin costume. If Raimi had managed his budget better and not blown it all on cg, he would have had the money.

Chris Wallace

06-13-2005, 10:45 PM

Remember what I said when you posted that remark in my thread? It still applies.

U.S War Machine

06-13-2005, 11:25 PM

I'm gonna have to go with the Goblin costume because, when ever he talks you can see his real mouth move.

spider-jide

06-14-2005, 04:20 AM

Remember what I said when you posted that remark in my thread? It still applies.

I dont recall......

mister Lennon

07-30-2005, 09:50 AM

Its difficult to choose because the two things were stupid as hell, but i choose the organics, one of the worst ideas in cinema story.

Kurt Wagner

07-30-2005, 10:26 AM

Using organic web-shooters was a horrible mistake, and I know why they did it. James Cameron wrote a disgusting, heathen scriptment for Spider-Man that featured organic mutations instead of scientific prowess. Thankfully, they didn't let Cameron direct the movie, but they had his stuff on file. They intended to use mechanical web-shooters, but the props were giving them trouble. They figured "hey, we have Cameron's monstrous idea, and it would save on props, time, and it looks smoother." Lazy bastards. That's all it is, laziness. They had a way out, and they took it. I condemned them to the deepest pits of hell for that decision, but when the movie out, I didn't mind it as much as I thought I would. Cameron's scriptment put a lot of emphasis on the "man-spider" metamorpohisis, and Sam Raimi's movie did not. They didn't swell on it or make it overtly disgusting, so it went down easy and didn't make me vomit. Next to the bigger mistakes they made in the movie, their glossed-over webshooter bastardization looked like nothing.

The Green Goblin suit has a different problem for me. Instead of being badly conceived, but better in appearance on screen, it's the opposite. I like the idea of the suit and glider being a military contract for Osborn. However, their is no excuse for that costume. Why does it look like an alien costume, you ask? Because Sam Raimi is a punk in many ways, and one of those ways is recycling actors (including his brother), material, and designs. He directed "M.A.N.T.I.S." Don't remember it? Don't feel bad. Point is, it's a similar costume, designed very insect-like. I would much, much rather see the Goblin in scaly, rubbery, non-segmented armor with a purple tunic over it than the Power Ranger special we got treated to in 2002. An insane villain like the Goblin needs a face that has expression. They should have used prosthetics.
Don't go dissing the man-purse. It's classic, it's true to source material, it's functional, and it goes with his stocking cap, purple jogging suit and pointy shoes. Gobby's got his own fashion goin' on.

I remember that show... thought it was alright back then, but not good by today's standards. Anyway, he does recycle and sometimes even re-use scenes... like how we already have a burning building scene in Spider-Man 1 & 2.

In reference to the Goblin's original costume, I think that would have been silly on screen also, but at least it would have still been better than the alien suit. As for his unique fashion, it could be changed a bit without makign the goblin look gay... For example, a material used for the current goblin suit could have been used instead of tights, just not this design.... and the man purse wouldn't be necessary cause he could use one of those one-strap back packs. Just a thought.

Also, what exactly was the problem with the webshooter props? It's not like it was a functioning prop anyway, so what problem could possibly exist... just tape the thing to Tobey's wrist and the CGI will do the rest.

mister Lennon

07-30-2005, 10:54 AM

Kurt Wagner

07-30-2005, 11:25 AM

The funny thing is that they didnt use the goblin costume from the comics because they said that it could be ridiculous on screen, and they go with a power ranger costume much more ridiculous. It is non sense.

and they wanted to base things in reality... which is why the suit is a product of the military... which makes me wonder... then why the heck the military would design something like that.

spider-jide

07-30-2005, 06:17 PM

and they wanted to base things in reality... which is why the suit is a product of the military... which makes me wonder... then why the heck the military would design something like that.

The costume itself is a military tool, which is understandable but you have to remember the mask itself wasn't part of the military's battle suit design, Norman did that entirely on his own.

Arcturus

07-30-2005, 11:31 PM

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/mistermalice/spidey4.jpg

Silverstein

07-31-2005, 02:46 AM

Peter Parker's webshooters are quite bulky. You see Ben Reily's outside of his costume and they are huge. I suppose Sam figured that it would be unrealistic that Peter put this things on and then they suddenly disapear under the costume as it becomes skin tight. That plus I hear that he thought it might be unrealistic that a 16 year old would know how to make a web shooter with such capabilities as being able to make webs of any size and so on.

spider-jide

07-31-2005, 03:31 AM

Peter Parker's webshooters are quite bulky. You see Ben Reily's outside of his costume and they are huge. I suppose Sam figured that it would be unrealistic that Peter put this things on and then they suddenly disapear under the costume as it becomes skin tight.

The web shooters have had many renditions over the years and spidey has used more stream-line, slimmer versions.

plus I hear that he thought it might be unrealistic that a 16 year old would know how to make a web shooter with such capabilities as being able to make webs of any size and so on.

Then Raimi has no real business directing a spider-man movie.

Kurt Wagner

07-31-2005, 10:11 AM

The costume itself is a military tool, which is understandable but you have to remember the mask itself wasn't part of the military's battle suit design, Norman did that entirely on his own.

Yeah, I considered this. The costume is still a bad design even for a military product, IMO. The mask was cool, but it also was a bad choice in that it didn't take advantage of DaFoe's expressions.

Peter Parker's webshooters are quite bulky. You see Ben Reily's outside of his costume and they are huge. I suppose Sam figured that it would be unrealistic that Peter put this things on and then they suddenly disapear under the costume as it becomes skin tight. That plus I hear that he thought it might be unrealistic that a 16 year old would know how to make a web shooter with such capabilities as being able to make webs of any size and so on.

They had the streamline versions which blend into the costume... There are concept designs of these somewhere, which I'll post if I find them. Or they could have gone with the bracelet look... but the streamline versions looked pretty good.

I hate the 16 year old kid argument... The guy was a genius... not some average kid or some straight-A student... genius. We have medical students that are 9 years old... musicians that start out as early as 2... so why would it be unrealistic for a 16 year old to invent something... especially if he was already scientifically gifted. just my IMO