Whats less realistic? Sandman or webshooters?

[blind_fury]

Raimi's excuse for not using webshooters was realism. A teenager couldnt create something a major corporation hasnt made (coughnapstercough). Well now he may be using Sandman, one of the least realistic villians in marvel universe. Does that mean we'll see synthetic webbing in Peter Parker's future as well? hmmmm.

[Silver Sable]

Both seem less realistic but especially the Sand-Man thingy

[Andrew]

I thought he didnt use mechanical webshooters because he thought it would be too difficult to explain how they work to the general public :confused:

[blind_fury]

I thought he didnt use mechanical webshooters because he thought it would be too difficult to explain how they work to the general public :confused:
That's a poor excuse. Simply showing Parker calibrating and testing a webshooter wouldve explained that in less than 2 minutes!

[Danalys]

that 2 minutes would have been cut for pacing if it'd been shot. In the spider-man film universe sandman is actually morer realistic. since major biological changes have happened and were essential. a small device capable of unleasing webbing at such force isn't. in the movie universe it's more realistic to have biological solutions to the problem of webbing. which is completely impossible anyway. but so are spider powers. the movie world has had advanced technology in it but it was the result of many years of work. not some thing knocked together in a few weeks. like webshooters would be. they also required massive investment. peter hasn't got that either to create webshooters.

[Visionary]

It's fiction people, in the realm of fiction all things are possible. But not if the director/writer(s) DON'T want them to be.

The horse is dead...please stop beating him.:)

[Danalys]

in fiction you have logical consitancy with in the bounderies of the fiction. the spider-man movies are taking as few fictional elements as possible then running with them. powers from spider bites was a fictional element that could explain web shooting. so why add another to explain what can already be explained.

[ultimatefan]

Sandman isn´t any more absurd than a kid being bitten by a spider and getting superpowers... The thing with the webshooters is simply Peter was just an unprivileged teenager, plus it´d take more time to show him developing the chemical webs, the shooters, etc. If you say it comes from government or a megacorporation it becomes easier to throw in the pseudoscience.

[TheSaintofKillers]

Yeah, well, the minute Raimi decided that webshooters weren't realistic enough in a SPIDER-MAN movie, he kind of shot himself in the foot.

Especially since his first movie felt like such a big saturday cartoon.

[Caliber]

Sand Man is less realistic.

[Spider-Fan]

Still on the webshooters? It seems like people are looking for excuses to make webshooter threads lately. What is done is done guys, deal with it.

[Boom]

Still on the webshooters?
Yes. In fact, I will be on them until the day they announce that the webshooters will be included in a new Spider-Man movie.

It's a long wait, I know. Just wanted to answer your question :).

[DDRSkata]

The webshooters are definitely more realistic than Sandman, which is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of them using Sandman as the villain.

[Visionary]

Not me.:cool:

[pdb781]

but a scientist creating large metallic arms which connect to his spinal column in order to contain the energy released from a made-up metal is also unrealistic.

[blind_fury]

that 2 minutes would have been cut for pacing if it'd been shot.
Why do you assume Parker testing his webshooters would be cut? It would fit in the movie just as well as the scene where Tobey Maguire shoots organic webbing all over his room.
In the spider-man film universe sandman is actually morer realistic. since major biological changes have happened and were essential. a small device capable of unleasing webbing at such force isn't.
What about Dr. Ock? His powers werent biological, they were mechanical. The movies allowed for mechanical marvels such as Green Goblin's glider and Dr.Ock's mechanical tentacles, I dont see what so absurd about a webshooting device.
in the movie universe it's more realistic to have biological solutions to the problem of webbing. which is completely impossible anyway. but so are spider powers. the movie world has had advanced technology in it but it was the result of many years of work. not some thing knocked together in a few weeks. like webshooters would be. they also required massive investment. peter hasn't got that either to create webshooters.
Just like Sam Raimi, you underestimate Peter Parker's skill and resourcefullness. Parker is smarter than you and me. He routinely matches wits with mad scientist and evil geniuses. He can whip up a special web formula to counter some villians special power in minutes. If you made a movie about Sherlock Holmes would you dumb down the character to make him more believable? No, that would defeat the purpose of telling the story.

Parker created the webshooters and webbing formula in days. That what the character is capable of. He's not your average teenager as the movies would have you believe.

Peter Parker makes a million dollar costume without any knowledge of tailorship and the audience believes it right away. Just like time travel in the "Back to the Future" films people accept science-fiction because its fun and imaginative. A time traveling car is silly, but the fact that its a cool idea causes ppl to go along with it. The truth is the movie universe allowed the quick invention of webshooters by a teenager. It doesnt require some elaborate fantasy world. The idea just simply needed to be introduced and the audience would happily go along for the ride.

[Boom]

Why do you assume Parker testing his webshooters would be cut? It would fit in the movie just as well as the scene where Tobey Maguire shoots organic webbing all over his room.

What about Dr. Ock? His powers werent biological, they were mechanical. The movies allowed for mechanical marvels such as Green Goblin's glider and Dr.Ock's mechanical tentacles, I dont see what so absurd about a webshooting device.

Just like Sam Raimi, you underestimate Peter Parker's skill and resourcefullness. Parker is smarter than you and me. He routinely matches wits with mad scientist and evil geniuses. He can whip up a special web formula to counter some villians special power in minutes. If you made a movie about Sherlock Holmes would you dumb down the character to make him more believable? No, that would defeat the purpose of telling the story.

Parker created the webshooters and webbing formula in days. That what the character is capable of. He's not your average teenager as the movies would have you believe.

Peter Parker makes a million dollar costume without any knowledge of tailorship and the audience believes it right away. Just like time travel in the "Back to the Future" films people accept science-fiction because its fun and imaginative. A time traveling car is silly, but the fact that its a cool idea causes ppl to go along with it. The truth is the movie universe allowed the quick invention of webshooters by a teenager. It doesnt require some elaborate fantasy world. The idea just simply needed to be introduced and the audience would happily go along for the ride.

You, sir, get two thumbs up.

:up::up:

[Mister Sinister]

It's fantasy, you don't need to believe it.

[ultimatefan]

Why do you assume Parker testing his webshooters would be cut? It would fit in the movie just as well as the scene where Tobey Maguire shoots organic webbing all over his room.

What about Dr. Ock? His powers werent biological, they were mechanical. The movies allowed for mechanical marvels such as Green Goblin's glider and Dr.Ock's mechanical tentacles, I dont see what so absurd about a webshooting device.

Just like Sam Raimi, you underestimate Peter Parker's skill and resourcefullness. Parker is smarter than you and me. He routinely matches wits with mad scientist and evil geniuses. He can whip up a special web formula to counter some villians special power in minutes. If you made a movie about Sherlock Holmes would you dumb down the character to make him more believable? No, that would defeat the purpose of telling the story.

Parker created the webshooters and webbing formula in days. That what the character is capable of. He's not your average teenager as the movies would have you believe.

Peter Parker makes a million dollar costume without any knowledge of tailorship and the audience believes it right away. Just like time travel in the "Back to the Future" films people accept science-fiction because its fun and imaginative. A time traveling car is silly, but the fact that its a cool idea causes ppl to go along with it. The truth is the movie universe allowed the quick invention of webshooters by a teenager. It doesnt require some elaborate fantasy world. The idea just simply needed to be introduced and the audience would happily go along for the ride.

It´s not a matter of underestimating Peter´s skills, is the resources to make something like chemical web are way beyond his, a project like that takes a lot of time and a lot of money. Even if he created it, he´d be so beyond his years that there´d be no reason why he wouldn´t already be a PHD and rich too. Peter´s not Reed Richards, he´s not the kinda character who keeps inventing revolutionary stuff, he´s mostly portrayed in comics as a science whiz, but not on the supergenius level.

The costume is expensive, but it´s not supposed to be perceived as such. in the context of the movie, it´s supposed to be perceived as plain spandex with raised webbing and lenses, the padded muscles, the custom fit cast making, the multiple suits, none of that is taken into the equation. It´s a simpler illusion. Plus the movies have made clear that Peter is a science whiz, it´s nothing more than the geeks fetiche obsession with the shooters. Spider-Man shoots his webs and he´s a science lover. That´s all I really care about.

[Mr. Socko]

Raimi's excuse for not using webshooters was realism

thats an even poorer excuse, when was Spiderman all about realism?

btw, even though It's a bad excuse I still like th organic web better

[GoldGoblin]

Webshooters are less realistic.

[LordSimen]

Bleh. Sandman is less realistic, but I don't care. It's an adaptation, changes like this are known to happen. I don't mind it, no big deal. Doesn't take anything away.

[Arcturus]

Sandman, of course.

[scifiwolf]

Actually, you all are wrong. Raimi didn't do the organic webbing, Jim Cameron did. His reason was that it seemed silly to get all these atributes of spiders and be shortchanged one. Personally, I like this logic and the organic webbing.

Now, given the argument between manufactured web shooters and Sandman, I'd say Sandman is less realistic. The key to great science fiction is the possibility of the fiction becoming a reality. Scientists are right on the cusp of replicating spider silk, and have already come up with tape to simulate the grip of gecko's feet (the area of a fingertip could support several hundred poupnds). A person being able to alter their atomic structure and manipulating inanimate matter in such a way is fun, but impossible.

[blind_fury]

Actually, you all are wrong. Raimi didn't do the organic webbing, Jim Cameron did. His reason was that it seemed silly to get all these atributes of spiders and be shortchanged one. Personally, I like this logic and the organic webbing.
Did James Cameron direct Spider-man? No. So how can you blame him for organics?

Spider-man has only two eyes and four limbs. He's 100% human. He wasnt meant to have spider physiology. Being short changed an ability wasnt a "silly" misstep on Stan Lee's part. It was a stroke of genius. Peter Parker must complete his spider abilities using his human intelligence. Its man vs nature. It's a great idea. An idea that shouldve been shared with millions of movie goers who were instead short changed themselves.

Stan Lee could've EASILY came up with organics. Hell, a four year old could've came up with organics.

[scifiwolf]

I'm not blaming him, I'm crediting him. Cameron came up with the idea in his script treatment, and it was the only thing Sam Raimi kept from it. And the whole "silly" thing was his opinion, not mine. I like the shooters, they work well in the comics, and they worked well for the cartoon. If you had read my entire post, you would've noticed that I cited the reality of synthetic spider silk. However, I think the organic webbing is more apprpopriate for the boundaries of reality in the movies.

[Agent Thermal]

In the Spiderman world, it is a granted "fact" that radioactivity, chemicals, experiments, and the like will somehow result in super-powers - there are infinite ways that the radiation/chemical/experiment can be conveyed (explosions, animal bites, accidents in labs, etc.), and there are infinite powers that can result (spider powers, transformations into half-animal/half-human creatures, shape-shifting abilities, incredible strength, etc.).

THAT is a given in the comic world - therefore, Sandman in THIS world is perfectly realistic.

Now that that's settled, let's consider webshooters. IN THE COMICS: Is it a common occurrance, even "normal," for a kid to be able to (relatively easily) invent things that the world's governments pay millions and millions of dollars toward and FAIL!? Even a supposedly "genius" kid (as if there are no geniuses hired by the government)? A kid with a significantly LIMITED budget? A kid who had NEVER planned to invent such a device UNTIL he gained his powers?

While belief in realism must DEFINITELY be suspended to appreciate a comic, there is still a certain degree of the "common sense" factor that needs to be retained - and as much as I love the Spiderman universe, the whole "invented webshooters" thing I've always viewed as awkward, unrealistic (yes, even by comic standards) and unnecessary. For someone with "Spider" powers to NOT be able to naturally shoot web is just weird. I realize that the movies need to be based on the comics as much as possible, and I'm all for it, but believe it or not - EVEN THE COMICS HAVE THEIR FLAWS. And I personally have always believed the invented webshooters to be one of those particular minor flaws. MY OPINION ALONE, PEOPLE!!! :D NONE OF THIS IS FACT, THIS IS MERELY HOW I REASON WITH AND VIEW THIS SITUATION!!! :D

I apologize to all who disagree (and I KNOW you're out there ;) ), but this IS a message board, and we are allowed (and SUPPOSED) to post our differing opinions on things. I don't put down those who DO prefer invented webshooters; you are MORE than entitled to your opinions, and I have the greatest respect for them. I only expect you to do the same for me. :) So don't get hateful! :D

[blind_fury]

It´s not a matter of underestimating Peter´s skills, is the resources to make something like chemical web are way beyond his, a project like that takes a lot of time and a lot of money. Even if he created it, he´d be so beyond his years that there´d be no reason why he wouldn´t already be a PHD and rich too. Peter´s not Reed Richards, he´s not the kinda character who keeps inventing revolutionary stuff, he´s mostly portrayed in comics as a science whiz, but not on the supergenius level.
You ever see a 6th grader's science project that was so complex you have to wonder if his parents did it. Those are webshooters and yes Peter Parker is capable. I'm absolutely sure of it. Some kids dont need their parents to get first place at the science fair. This is a story about one of those nerds and how those socially unpopular abilities could actually become an asset if one of those nerds ever got their chance. Webshooters explain why a nerd would make a much better Spider-man than a jock like Flash Thompson.
Plus the movies have made clear that Peter is a science whiz, it´s nothing more than the geeks fetiche obsession with the shooters.
Calling webshooters a fetish is like calling Captain America's shield a fetish. Or calling wolverine's adamantium a fetish. Sorry but Peter Parker's greatest scientific accomplishment and one of the coolest gadgets in comic book history is far more significant than a simple geek fetish.Its American mythology.
Spider-Man shoots his webs and he´s a science lover. That´s all I really care about.
What's the point of Peter Parker/Spider-man "loving" science unless he can use it to fight crime? :confused:

[Cudzo]

okay. why i'm jumping into this knitpic subject, i'll have to remind myself later why, .. but annyhooot....


On the subject of specificly the organic web shooters, after having discussed this with people in reality, an extremely intersting point was brought up to me. If he was bitten by a genetically modified spider, which subsiquently had its genes spliced in with his, why then does the webbing shoot out his wrist? why not his elbow? or out his right tit? or, if they really wanted to be accurate, out his a-hole, cuase isnt' that about where a normal spider spins its webs? ya, theres an interesting visual for ya !

(criminals are heisting the 1st3rd bank, and spidey swings in by his a-hole) " looks like my @$$ just swung here in a nick of time" says spidey. "oh shoot, its spiderman! run before he bends over! " .........

Now, that all being said, yes the sandman is more unrealistic. but i dont' think that means he can't work in the movie. how i would aproach it though is to not do an origin for him. leave it in the catigory of mystery, where when spidey gets in a fight with him, its just a more 'what in the hell' moment. im' not convinced it can be pulled off visually, but if it can, i think he can work.

[DDRSkata]

okay. why i'm jumping into this knitpic subject, i'll have to remind myself later why, .. but annyhooot....


On the subject of specificly the organic web shooters, after having discussed this with people in reality, an extremely intersting point was brought up to me. If he was bitten by a genetically modified spider, which subsiquently had its genes spliced in with his, why then does the webbing shoot out his wrist? why not his elbow? or out his right tit? or, if they really wanted to be accurate, out his a-hole, cuase isnt' that about where a normal spider spins its webs? ya, theres an interesting visual for ya !

(criminals are heisting the 1st3rd bank, and spidey swings in by his a-hole) " looks like my @$$ just swung here in a nick of time" says spidey. "oh shoot, its spiderman! run before he bends over! " .........

Now, that all being said, yes the sandman is more unrealistic. but i dont' think that means he can't work in the movie. how i would aproach it though is to not do an origin for him. leave it in the catigory of mystery, where when spidey gets in a fight with him, its just a more 'what in the hell' moment. im' not convinced it can be pulled off visually, but if it can, i think he can work.

A normal spider does not shoot webs from the anus. The webs are produced by one or more separate organs called spinerettes. In some spiders (if I recall correctly), the spinerettes are located in two of the legs. In most spiders, they are located near, but not in, the anus. So if a human were to be combined with a spider somehow, the web would not shoot out of the arse. Actually, the organ in mammals most analogous to the spinerette is the mammary gland, so it'd probably have to be a woman who shot web from her breasts. But for the sake of the movie, we can assume it was a spider whose spinerettes were in its legs and it transferred to Peter's arms. Christ, it's just a movie. :(

[Danalys]

Why do you assume Parker testing his webshooters would be cut? It would fit in the movie just as well as the scene where Tobey Maguire shoots organic webbing all over his room.
well they could have the few seconds of webshooting practace but with mechanicals. but a few seconds aint a minute.

What about Dr. Ock? His powers werent biological, they were mechanical. The movies allowed for mechanical marvels such as Green Goblin's glider and Dr.Ock's mechanical tentacles, I dont see what so absurd about a webshooting device. so you didn't read my comparison of the green goblins and doc ocks technology to mechanical shooters. i explained that they each had far more investment, far more time put in and far more personel working on them. they would have used expensive premade componants that could be adapted to a new purpose. they are each actually more realistic that webshooter any way.


Just like Sam Raimi, you underestimate Peter Parker's skill and resourcefullness. Parker is smarter than you and me. He routinely matches wits with mad scientist and evil geniuses. He can whip up a special web formula to counter some villians special power in minutes. If you made a movie about Sherlock Holmes would you dumb down the character to make him more believable? No, that would defeat the purpose of telling the story.

peter aint smarter than me actually. the only things he's ever done that are smarter than me are paintently impossible. and thus i can't do them to prove i'm as intelligent as he. i'm even smart enough to realise that the intelligence sherlock holmes is famous for is possible. and thus is perfectly believable. he just does things in minutes that it takes others far longer to do using notes to aid memory and such. and there are people of such ability in the word. they're called prodogys. peter has never demonstrated being a prodogy what so ever. yet he has done the impossible. mostly because stan lee had to find ways for peter to be scientifically clever with out being particulary clever in scientific fields himself.

Parker created the webshooters and webbing formula in days. That what the character is capable of. He's not your average teenager as the movies would have you believe.
deus ex machina solutions to defeating badguys thats all. peter does nothing to demonstrate genius apart from this. infact he often demonstrates he is of high intelligence but not genius when he's doing anything else. his whole life demonstrates that.


Peter Parker makes a million dollar costume without any knowledge of tailorship and the audience believes it right away. Just like time travel in the "Back to the Future" films people accept science-fiction because its fun and imaginative. A time traveling car is silly, but the fact that its a cool idea causes ppl to go along with it. The truth is the movie universe allowed the quick invention of webshooters by a teenager. It doesnt require some elaborate fantasy world. The idea just simply needed to be introduced and the audience would happily go along for the ride.

how would you know a time travelling car is silly. would time travelling in a static object make more sense to you. one of them is required for any time travel movie tho. so it is irrelavent if they are silly or not.

i can catagorically say webshooters are silly tho. from the pressures that would be required to the sheer amount of webbing actually required to webswing. peter would need an amazing compression device just to fill his cartriges. it's impossible that he could make one or buy one. or that one could even fullfill the specifications required. biology is often capable of what technology is not tho. but even if biologolical solutions can pressurize the fluid . there is no way to have enough fluid in the body. organics can get around this with constant production of fluid. after that you get an energy usage problem but that is a problem shared by all of peters powers. so thus moot.

[dos_acoustic]

There should have been another choice to vote for. It should of had " an alien costume "

[pimpernel]

Who cares? Get over it.

[ultimatefan]

You ever see a 6th grader's science project that was so complex you have to wonder if his parents did it. Those are webshooters and yes Peter Parker is capable. I'm absolutely sure of it. Some kids dont need their parents to get first place at the science fair. This is a story about one of those nerds and how those socially unpopular abilities could actually become an asset if one of those nerds ever got their chance. Webshooters explain why a nerd would make a much better Spider-man than a jock like Flash Thompson.

Calling webshooters a fetish is like calling Captain America's shield a fetish. Or calling wolverine's adamantium a fetish. Sorry but Peter Parker's greatest scientific accomplishment and one of the coolest gadgets in comic book history is far more significant than a simple geek fetish.Its American mythology.

What's the point of Peter Parker/Spider-man "loving" science unless he can use it to fight crime? :confused:

Not simply webshooters, but mostly artificial web is way beyond any sixth grader. It´s beyond adhesive material industries with tons of scientists working for them at this point.

The first thing geeks come up with to justify their nitpicks is the whole "icon", "mythology" thing. People wearing trunks outside of their pants has been called "mythology" too. It´s a fetish because it has been shown that Peter can shoot his webs without shooters. Shooting webs from your wrists isn´t any more biologically impossible than a human having a spider´s agility and strength (spiders can´t lift twenty times their weight, BTW, that´s ants) or spider-sense or crawling on walls.

Webshooters are not the only way Peter can use science to fight crime. And the science knowledge helps to establish he´s a brilliant but awkward kid, a geek.

[Cudzo]

Not simply webshooters, but mostly artificial web is way beyond any sixth grader. It´s beyond adhesive material industries with tons of scientists working for them at this point.

The first thing geeks come up with to justify their nitpicks is the whole "icon", "mythology" thing. People wearing trunks outside of their pants has been called "mythology" too. It´s a fetish because it has been shown that Peter can shoot his webs without shooters. Shooting webs from your wrists isn´t any more biologically impossible than a human having a spider´s agility and strength (spiders can´t lift twenty times their weight, BTW, that´s ants) or spider-sense or crawling on walls.

Webshooters are not the only way Peter can use science to fight crime. And the science knowledge helps to establish he´s a brilliant but awkward kid, a geek.

Fair enough. i think it can be easily agreed that even though some might have wished they had webshooters, the reasoning for thier absence makes sence and is justifiable. its a very tiny beef if thats your beef.

that being said, i think my a-hole webshooter is genius lol.

[spider-jide]

Raimi's excuse for not using webshooters was realism. A teenager couldnt create something a major corporation hasnt made (coughnapstercough). Well now he may be using Sandman, one of the least realistic villians in marvel universe. Does that mean we'll see synthetic webbing in Peter Parker's future as well? hmmmm.

Well, webshooters and a man that can morph into sand at will? Hmm, going by logic alone, they're just as unbelievable or belieavable as each other, which ever way you look at it. This is where Raimi looks like a complete turd because, its clear that he forgets that he is making a fil derrived from pure fantasy and imagination and if a man can have 4 metallic arms grafted to his spine, what is so hard to believe about a boy making a device that can discharge web-fluid? or a man that can morph and alter his molecules into sand?

[ultimatefan]

Well, webshooters and a man that can morph into sand at will? Hmm, going by logic alone, they're just as unbelievable or belieavable as each other, which ever way you look at it. This is where Raimi looks like a complete turd because, its clear that he forgets that he is making a fil derrived from pure fantasy and imagination and if a man can have 4 metallic arms grafted to his spine, what is so hard to believe about a boy making a device that can discharge web-fluid? or a man that can morph and alter his molecules into sand?
Even "pure fantasy" always comes with a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, otherwise why don´t they make Peter turn into a spider with wings that can spit fire and can morph into a catchup bottle?

The anti-organics argument always comes back to "why shouldn´t he have the shooters?" But you can easily reverse the question: "why shouldn´t he have organic web?" That is, if you accept it that a spider can biologically transfer all its most advantageous skills to a human body, why wouldn´t it transfer the most advantageous and distinctive of them all? Any biological reason you put up to say organics wouldn´t work can as well be applied to any of the other spider powers (spiders can´t lift twenty times their weight; a real "spider-sense" only warns of immediate present danger, not enemies sneaking in the distance; you´d have to change your whole body structure to be able to jump many times your own height, etc.)

[The Green Goblin]

... But you can easily reverse the question: "why shouldn´t he have organic web?"


Thats easy. ITS NOT TRUE TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL (of forty-plus years)

[ultimatefan]

Thats easy. ITS NOT TRUE TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL (of forty-plus years)
the answer to that is easy too: NOT EVERY FAN WANTS A MOVIE TO BE A LITERAL PAGE-BY-PAGE REPRODUCTION OF THE COMICS! THAT´S WHY IT´S CALLED ADAPTATION AND EVERY SOURCE MATERIAL IN THE WORLD GOES THROUGH THE SAME THING!!

[The Green Goblin]

the answer to that is easy too: NOT EVERY FAN WANTS A MOVIE TO BE A LITERAL PAGE-BY-PAGE REPRODUCTION OF THE COMICS! THAT´S WHY IT´S CALLED ADAPTATION AND EVERY SOURCE MATERIAL IN THE WORLD GOES THROUGH THE SAME THING!!


I don't disagree, but even adaptions should not change a vital part of the heart of the character. With that reasoning ^ guess, you'd be OK if they changed the costume, or had Uncle Ben live, or had a good Doc Ock ... oops. :o ;)

[ultimatefan]

I don't disagree, but even adaptions should not change a vital part of the heart of the character. With that reasoning ^ guess, you'd be OK if they changed the costume, or had Uncle Ben live, or had a good Doc Ock ... oops. :o ;)
But then again not everyone thinks a pair of gadgets is a vital part of the heart of the character...

[The Green Goblin]

But then again not everyone thinks a pair of gadgets is a vital part of the heart of the character...

Yeah ... Like Batman doesn't need a batmobile and a utility belt, Indiana Jones doesn't need a whip, or Superman doesn't need a cape. :confused: "Some" think they are a vital PART. For one they are not just gadgets, they represent a boy genius' intelligence and resourcefulness. I suppose this isn't necessary either. And lets see, while they were ADAPTING they also cut out Peter's relentess wit and confidence that takes over when he's in costume. I guess in this day of instant gratification it only needs to look the part to satisfy; heart and character be damned.

Last thing we need is an Organics Suck 2005, (even though they do :p ) so its probably best you stop apologizing for them and I'll stop condemning them ... publically. ;)

[TheSlag]

Yeah ... Like Batman doesn't need a batmobile and a utility belt, Indiana Jones doesn't need a whip, or Superman doesn't need a cape. :confused: "Some" think they are a vital PART. For one they are not just gadgets, they represent a boy genius' intelligence and resourcefulness. I suppose this isn't necessary either. And lets see, while they were ADAPTING they also cut out Peter's relentess wit and confidence that takes over when he's in costume. I guess in this day of instant gratification it only needs to look the part to satisfy; heart and character be damned.

Last thing we need is an Organics Suck 2005, (even though they do :p ) so its probably best you stop apologizing for them and I'll stop condemning them ... publically. ;)

"Cally"???? I used to date a girl named Cally. ;) :D

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Other than my girl publi"Cally".... Very well said.

*Heads for shelter as he knows he'll pay for this... "dear(ly) Cally"* :eek:

[ninjaspyder13]

I knew the teenage girl who got funding by Honda to make the water-emitting fuel cell. There are such things as teenage prodigies; it is scientifically possible. In fact, with all the polymer technology around today (expanding polymers and sticky polymers used by cops and the military) as well as the NASA-developed ribbons that are thinner than hair but 50X the strength of steel, it is possible in the 21st century for someone with enough obsession and ability to make himself some super strong "webbing."

But a person who can turn into sand? If anyone possessed the technology to do something that specific to a living thing--even by accident--he'd basically have the ability to grab random photons, mix up their muons and gluons and form whatever element he wanted. We just aren't anywhere near that stage in scientific development.

[TheSlag]

I knew the teenage girl who got funding by Honda to make the water-emitting fuel cell. There are such things as teenage prodigies; it is scientifically possible. In fact, with all the polymer technology around today (expanding polymers and sticky polymers used by cops and the military) as well as the NASA-developed ribbons that are thinner than hair but 50X the strength of steel, it is possible in the 21st century for someone with enough obsession and ability to make himself some super strong "webbing."

But a person who can turn into sand? If anyone possessed the technology to do something that specific to a living thing--even by accident--he'd basically have the ability to grab random photons, mix up their muons and gluons and form whatever element he wanted. We just aren't anywhere near that stage in scientific development.

"muons and gluons".... Mr. Bill the Science Guy posts on the HYPE!!!!! :eek: ;)

[The Green Goblin]

Yes, Calli dang it as in "Californy is the place you ought to be" ..." Or was it that midnight train to Texas. :confused: "Whooo Doggies" ;)

@#$*&@ Slags in the grass. :bomb:

[TheSlag]

Yes, Calli dang it as in "Californy is the place you ought to be" ..." Or was it that midnight train to Texas. :confused: "Whooo Doggies" ;)

@#$*&@ Slags in the grass. :bomb:

*wipes away a tear* Train whistles at midnight... Saddest sound I ever heard. *don't look at me* ;)

[Demogoblin]

Sandman, by a hair.

I'm still glad that he may be the next villian and couldnt care less about organics, though. :)

[TheSlag]

Sandman, by a hair.

I'm still glad that he may be the next villian and couldnt care less about organics, though. :)

One @#$@#@#$#$#$ frickin long hair... IMO. ;)

[Visionary]

As usual you people have turn another thread into phycho-babble, and useless information coming from a dribbling childish mouth. Oh, and there are NO MECHANICAL webshooters in the film and there NEVER will be (unless I demand it)--sorry for the REALITY CHECK.

However, at this very moment I'm building an idea that could possibly, rid the movie of organics forever and bring forth only mechanical webshooters. It's a long shot, but since I got my beloved character SANDMAN in SM3 and got rid of Danny Elfman...my mind's eye have collaborated with greatness.

[Danalys]

I knew the teenage girl who got funding by Honda to make the water-emitting fuel cell. There are such things as teenage prodigies; it is scientifically possible. In fact, with all the polymer technology around today (expanding polymers and sticky polymers used by cops and the military) as well as the NASA-developed ribbons that are thinner than hair but 50X the strength of steel, it is possible in the 21st century for someone with enough obsession and ability to make himself some super strong "webbing."

But a person who can turn into sand? If anyone possessed the technology to do something that specific to a living thing--even by accident--he'd basically have the ability to grab random photons, mix up their muons and gluons and form whatever element he wanted. We just aren't anywhere near that stage in scientific development.

i think the important part of this post is funded by honda. there is no way a teenager of peters means can make webbing or a strong enough casing to contain it at the pressure required. maintaining that pressure after partial release would be even harder. no matter how clever he is.

[ninjaspyder13]

i think the important part of this post is funded by honda. there is no way a teenager of peters means can make webbing or a strong enough casing to contain it at the pressure required. maintaining that pressure after partial release would be even harder. no matter how clever he is.

Ever heard of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair?

[ultimatefan]

Yeah ... Like Batman doesn't need a batmobile and a utility belt, Indiana Jones doesn't need a whip, or Superman doesn't need a cape. :confused: "Some" think they are a vital PART. For one they are not just gadgets, they represent a boy genius' intelligence and resourcefulness. I suppose this isn't necessary either. And lets see, while they were ADAPTING they also cut out Peter's relentess wit and confidence that takes over when he's in costume. I guess in this day of instant gratification it only needs to look the part to satisfy; heart and character be damned.

Last thing we need is an Organics Suck 2005, (even though they do :p ) so its probably best you stop apologizing for them and I'll stop condemning them ... publically. ;)
That´s not the same thing... the point is, Spidey still shoots his webs. It´s not the same thing as depriving Batman of the batmobile, Batman has no superpowers, he needs it for transportation. And Supes doesn´t really need a cape, if you stop to think about it... :p And I don´t think he lost his wit and confidence because he doesn´t throw a dang bunch of quips in the nanossecond he takes to throw a punch.

And Í am sick of this apologizing thing... it´s the PIMP rethorical crutch... I just don´t agree with you, simple as that, live with it.

[TheSlag]

That´s not the same thing... the point is, Spidey still shoots his webs. It´s not the same thing as depriving Batman of the batmobile, Batman has no superpowers, he needs it for transportation. And Supes doesn´t really need a cape, if you stop to think about it... And I don´t think he lost his wit and confidence because he doesn´t throw a dang bunch of quips in the nanossecond he takes to throw a punch.

And Í am sick of this apologizing thing... it´s the PIMP rethorical crutch... I just don´t agree with you, simple as that, live with it.

So we could put Bats in a Nascar and it he would "still" get around fast, and have it for "transportation". So that would work... right? Of course not. And I know it's an exageration, but it's supposed to be to make the point.

Even if you changed the Batmobile to a James Bond spy car, looking like the James Bond spy car... it still would not be right.

The sum of the parts, make the whole. And in this case, there are too many "holes" in the whole of the Spidey Movie Character.

[ultimatefan]

So we could put Bats in a Nascar and it he would "still" get around fast, and have it for "transportation". So that would work... right? Of course not. And I know it's an exageration, but it's supposed to be to make the point.

Even if you changed the Batmobile to a James Bond spy car, looking like the James Bond spy car... it still would not be right.

The sum of the parts, make the whole. And in this case, there are too many "holes" in the whole of the Spidey Movie Character.
Not to me. And not to the majority of fans, as the success of the movies states to.

Oh, and the new Batmobile is far different from the old ones, it has no fins, it´s the "tankmobile"... and it works for me.

[Visionary]

Not to me. And not to the majority of fans, as the success of the movies states to.

Oh, and the new Batmobile is far different from the old ones, it has no fins, it´s the "tankmobile"... and it works for me.
Very interesting points on both parts, I agree. Not to mention, Batman is still wearing his Rubbermaid suit, not like the comics. Just as well, we'll all be there when Bats opens.

[The Green Goblin]

That´s not the same thing... the point is, Spidey still shoots his webs. It´s not the same thing as depriving Batman of the batmobile, Batman has no superpowers, he needs it for transportation. And Supes doesn´t really need a cape, if you stop to think about it... :p And I don´t think he lost his wit and confidence because he doesn´t throw a dang bunch of quips in the nanossecond he takes to throw a punch.

And Í am sick of this apologizing thing... it´s the PIMP rethorical crutch... I just don´t agree with you, simple as that, live with it.

Oooh, see how the apologist, Raimi worshippers turn when you shine the light on them. They call you names ("Pimp" ... :cool: )

Yes, we disagree, (the difference is you're wrong and I'm right. :p ;) ) You just don't expect as much, from your Spider-Man. Nothing wrong with that. Look! He's red and blue and webs come out of him. Works for me.

As far as Batman, it is the exact same thing, except its his transportation AND utility belt. Batman in a VW Bug would still be "transportation" just as organics are still "shooting webs" ... right? And you skipped right over the Indy and Soups examples.

[TheSlag]

Not to me. And not to the majority of fans, as the success of the movies states to.

Oh, and the new Batmobile is far different from the old ones, it has no fins, it´s the "tankmobile"... and it works for me.

So you would be OK with the Nascar. *got you down*

[Visionary]

Nascar, we got the THUNDERTANK?

[TheSlag]

Nascar, we got the THUNDERTANK?

1) Have you ever "heard" Nascars when they "crank it up"? ;)

2) Transportation is transportation, and they're fast too. So it fits all the requirements right?????

[The Green Goblin]

as the success of the movies states to.


So, by that logic The Phantom Menace is a great a film. Sure was "successful", more so even than Spidey.

The heart Osborn ... The Heart. ;)

And do you really think Spider-Man would have been any less successful with mechs?

... by the way, that new "Batmobile" *sucketh*.

[ultimatefan]

So you would be OK with the Nascar. *got you down*
A lot of the batmobiles were more or less race or sports cars with fins...

[ultimatefan]

So, by that logic The Phantom Menace is a great a film. Sure was "successful", more so even than Spidey.

The heart Osborn ... The Heart. ;)

And do you really think Spider-Man would have been any less successful with mechs?

... by the way, that new "Batmobile" *sucketh*.
TPM is hated by most people these days, the Spidey movies aren´t.

We will never know, and I don´t care.

And the batmobile can do things that would make Eviel Knievel´s jaw drop... just wait till you see it in action.

[The Green Goblin]

TPM is hated by most people these days, the Spidey movies aren´t.

We will never know, and I don´t care.

Just going by your example dude, that success at the box office means a movie has heart and was done right. ;)

Really, could have fooled me, the way you jump in every chance you get to discuss mechs and defend the organics, which had NOTHING to do with the success of the film. Still a pointless, unnecessary change IMO.

You mean it can jump the Snake River Canyon!!? :eek:

[ultimatefan]

Just going by your example dude, that success at the box office means a movie has heart and was done right. ;)

Really, could have fooled me, the way you jump in every chance you get to discuss mechs and defend the organics, which had NOTHING to do with the success of the film. Still a pointless, unnecessary change IMO.
I didn´t mean only BO success, but how much the movies have been loved by audiences and still are, including, as I said, by most fans.

I don´t "jump", in fact I haven´t talked about this in months, maybe a year or so, it´s always the same little group of geeks who seek desperately for a way to regurgitate it again and again...

[Visionary]

Still a pointless, unnecessary change IMO.
Yeah, good point, but a lot still enjoyed it and did indeed looked forward to its sequel. What's done is done, you can't change it now. Well, I can with some good fancy writing and...nevermind.:cool:

[The Green Goblin]

I didn´t mean only BO success, but how much the movies have been loved by audiences and still are, including, as I said, by most fans.

I don´t "jump", in fact I haven´t talked about this in months, maybe a year or so, it´s always the same little group of geeks who seek desperately for a way to regurgitate it again and again...

Ah, more name calling again. Geez ... and backpedaling like crazy on your Box Office example. You talk out of both sides of your ass as good as anyone I've ever seen. :D :up:

And I only spoke up because YOU brought up/ encouraged the discussion by trying to justify the organics here:
The anti-organics argument always comes back to "why shouldn´t he have the shooters?" But you can easily reverse the question: "why shouldn´t he have organic web?"


Its fine that you don't mind the organics, (although I get the feeling Spidey swinging around by way of webs out of his ass would be OK with you) but don't try to ram their "virtues" down the throats of the "few" who admire and appreciate a more traditional, classic Spidey.



Well, I can with some good fancy writing and...nevermind.:cool:

Well, you're batting a thousand now with Sandy and the departure of "The Elf". Might as well give it a shot. :cool:

[ultimatefan]

Ah, more name calling again. Geez ... and backpedaling like crazy on your Box Office example. You talk out of both sides of your ass as good as anyone I've ever seen. :D :up:

And I only spoke up because YOU brought up/ encouraged the discussion by trying to justify the organics here:

Its fine that you don't mind the organics, (although I get the feeling Spidey swinging around by way of webs out of his ass would be OK with you) but don't try to ram their "virtues" down the throats of the "few" who admire and appreciate a more traditional, classic Spidey.




Well, you're batting a thousand now with Sandy and the departure of "The Elf". Might as well give it a shot. :cool:

I wasn´t backpedaling on anything, I always maintained that the movies were successfull, including with the majority of fans, not only "average Joe moviegoer". it was you who put "ticket sales justify anything" in my mouth.

What name calling? Geek? I´m a geek and proud of it, I just don´t appreciate a particular form of geekism...

And I only spoke because someone used Sandman as excuse # 9797876482354 to bring this subject back for the umpteenth time.

I would have a problem with Spidey´s web coming out of his butt, but that´s not what´s being done, it´s you people who keep, I dunno, fantasizing with it...

I´m not throwing anything down anyone´s throats, I´m giving my opinion and defending it, which is what you´re doing as well, if I was mean at some point, so were you...

[The Green Goblin]

I wasn´t backpedaling on anything, I always maintained that the movies were successfull, including with the majority of fans, not only "average Joe moviegoer". it was you who put "ticket sales justify anything" in my mouth.

You tried to justify the organics by citing the box office success. I debunked your theory by pointing out box office success does not = quality. The movie would have been just as successful with mechs. You twisted your words around and backpedaled. End of subject.

What name calling? Geek? I´m a geek and proud of it, I just don´t appreciate a particular form of geekism...

Oh, so its Ok to be a geek, just not a certain type of geek. (as defined by your opinion.) Gimme a break. Putting down geeks who appreciate the classics and then bragging about being a geek; More doubletalk.


And I only spoke because someone used Sandman as excuse # 9797876482354 to bring this subject back for the umpteenth time.

Um, you saw the title of the thread, you could have chosen to stay out. I don't like the new Batmobile. I do not go over to the Batboards to complain about it.


I would have a problem with Spidey´s web coming out of his butt, but that´s not what´s being done, it´s you people who keep, I dunno, fantasizing with it...

heh, "you people". More of the same disdain for those that don't worship at the feet of Raimi. And where do you draw the line at this ... adapting. Is it really anything goes til webs are launched out the butt?

I´m not throwing anything down anyone´s throats, I´m giving my opinion and defending it, which is what you´re doing as well, if I was mean at some point, so were you...

"Mean". "Mean"? :D Dude, I'M THE FRICKIN GREEN GOBLIN!!! What do you expect. :p I don't take anything personal on here, hope you don't. Its all in good fun to me.

And I'm curious, do you have any criticisms of the films, because I certainly like a great deal about them. Doesn't mean I'll blindly accept anything Raimi and Co. churn out though.

[ultimatefan]

You tried to justify the organics by citing the box office success. I debunked your theory by pointing out box office success does not = quality. The movie would have been just as successful with mechs. You twisted your words around and backpedaled. End of subject.



Oh, so its Ok to be a geek, just not a certain type of geek. (as defined by your opinion.) Gimme a break. Putting down geeks who appreciate the classics and then bragging about being a geek; More doubletalk.



Um, you saw the title of the thread, you could have chosen to stay out. I don't like the new Batmobile. I do not go over to the Batboards to complain about it.



heh, "you people". More of the same disdain for those that don't worship at the feet of Raimi. And where do you draw the line at this ... adapting. Is it really anything goes til webs are launched out the butt?



"Mean". "Mean"? :D Dude, I'M THE FRICKIN GREEN GOBLIN!!! What do you expect. :p I don't take anything personal on here, hope you don't. Its all in good fun to me.

And I'm curious, do you have any criticisms of the films, because I certainly like a great deal about them. Doesn't mean I'll blindly accept anything Raimi and Co. churn out though.
Jeezus, when it was said the movie didn´t portray Peter right, my words were "not to me, and NOT TO THE MAJORITY OF FANS, AS THE SUCCESS OF THE MOVIES STATES TO". Notice that I mentioned FANS, and I said success generically, which can mean both BO success and approval, so NO, I wasn´t arguing for BO only.

So, if I disagree with someone´s opinion, I have to stay out? Without conflict, there´s no debate... Actually, I been avoiding it most of time because it´s a tired topic, but they´re trying to use the new movie again as an excuse to bring it back, so I had to throw my two cents.

I don´t think I show nearly as much "disdain" as some of those who seem to despise anyone who doesn´t think Raimi destroyed Spidey...

The line is drawn case by case... I know what I accept and what I don´t... Uncle Ben alive, that´s something I wouldn´t accept... The webshooters aren´t up there with that... That´s how I feel.

No, I don´t "blindly" accept things, that´s another rethorical crutch... I don´t like some of the dialogue and pacing in the first movie, not crazy about the Green Goblin costume, think the pacing slows down a bit much at places in the second one, didn´t like the Russian blonde girl...

[Danalys]

Ever heard of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair?

not by name but i do know that there are such things as science fairs and that peter parker didn't go to one to help in creating web fluid or webshooters. he came up with the impossible in less than a page in AF 15, in such a matter of fact way about such an unmatter of fact thing.

a web shooter has to fire with multiples more force than a hand gun to get webbing as far as it does. even with massive pumps water can't be fired as far. ropes can't be fired as far. unless they had a cannon ball on the end then you still need a cannon to fire it. now how much development has gone into those things, over how many years.

[The Green Goblin]

Jeezus, when it was said the movie didn´t portray Peter right, my words were "not to me, and NOT TO THE MAJORITY OF FANS, AS THE SUCCESS OF THE MOVIES STATES TO". Notice that I mentioned FANS, and I said success generically, which can mean both BO success and approval, so NO, I wasn´t arguing for BO only.

Your statement in caps there clearly says box office success means its validated by the fans. As we both agreed The Phantom Menace disproves that. It was just your way of somehow trying to prove you are right and validate organics, and discredit those who are more true to the source material. As I've tried to point out to you the film would have been just as successful with mechs (as they were only dealt with a few minutes anyway). Your argument, that particular one, doesn't hold water.

So, if I disagree with someone´s opinion, I have to stay out? Without conflict, there´s no debate... Actually, I been avoiding it most of time because it´s a tired topic, but they´re trying to use the new movie again as an excuse to bring it back, so I had to throw my two cents.

Of course not. Just don't go in and then whine about how TIRED you are of the argument, calling the opposition "pimps". ;) You can't go in and argue and then throw up your hands in expiration because you are rebutted and not declared automatically right. [/quote]

I don´t think I show nearly as much "disdain" as some of those who seem to despise anyone who doesn´t think Raimi destroyed Spidey...

Dude, you're practically on the Sony payroll. :p ;)

The line is drawn case by case... I know what I accept and what I don´t... Uncle Ben alive, that´s something I wouldn´t accept... The webshooters aren´t up there with that... That´s how I feel.



OK, thats cool. We're all entitled to our opinions. Although, Its pretty safe to say you're fairly liberal in terms of how Spider-man is translated to the screen. (as long as webs don't come out the butt) ;)

No, I don´t "blindly" accept things, that´s another rethorical crutch... I don´t like some of the dialogue and pacing in the first movie, not crazy about the Green Goblin costume, think the pacing slows down a bit much at places in the second one, didn´t like the Russian blonde girl...

You call it a crutch, I call "it" (embracing and rejoicing in a Spidey with organics, no "fire" ie wisecracks etc... and a good Doc Ock) ... blindly accepting anything they spit out.

Look at your sig man. ;)

[Daisy]

Goblin... time to do some spring cleaning... of your PM box. :o

[The Green Goblin]

Oops, um let me grab a broom. ;)

[spider-jide]

Even "pure fantasy" always comes with a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, otherwise why don´t they make Peter turn into a spider with wings that can spit fire and can morph into a catchup bottle?


Then it wouldn't be spider-man now would it.

[Cudzo]

So we could put Bats in a Nascar and it he would "still" get around fast, and have it for "transportation". So that would work... right? Of course not. And I know it's an exageration, but it's supposed to be to make the point.

Even if you changed the Batmobile to a James Bond spy car, looking like the James Bond spy car... it still would not be right.

The sum of the parts, make the whole. And in this case, there are too many "holes" in the whole of the Spidey Movie Character.

to be a devils advocate here, it wouldn't quite be like depriving batman of his batmobile visually speaking, becuase visuallly speaking we almost never see the webshooters except when Peter is working on them. if having never watched the sm movie, you saw a clip of spidey swinging through the city, you wouldn't think anything of it. vrs if you never saw a batman movie, and saw batman driving in a ohh.... lets say a 59' el comino , well, that would raise an eyebrow.

[Cudzo]

Its fine that you don't mind the organics, (although I get the feeling Spidey swinging around by way of webs out of his ass would be OK with you) but don't try to ram their "virtues" down the throats of the "few" who admire and appreciate a more traditional, classic Spidey.
. :cool:

yes lol. the a-whole web shooter catches on .:up:

[TheSlag]

to be a devils advocate here, it wouldn't quite be like depriving batman of his batmobile visually speaking, becuase visuallly speaking we almost never see the webshooters except when Peter is working on them. if having never watched the sm movie, you saw a clip of spidey swinging through the city, you wouldn't think anything of it. vrs if you never saw a batman movie, and saw batman driving in a ohh.... lets say a 59' el comino , well, that would raise an eyebrow.

That's kinda the whole point. The 59 El Camino would not work for you, just like the organics does not work for us (some moreso than others). And yes, I understand your point about "not seeing" the webshooters, but I disagree with it. The fact that we don't see the webshooters, takes away from Spidey's character, just as much if not more IMO that Bat's driving the 59 El Camino.

We don't get to see Peter's scientific genius side. We don't get to see him invent them, struggle to make them work, find time and money to develop the webbing, and most importantly to me, we don't get to see the dynamics the mech webshooters bring into the stroy of Spider-Man.

The running out of webbing at key moments. The quips to thugs about appreciating how much money he's investing to "gift-wrap" your sorry arse for the police. We don't get the dynamics of how to use his webbing to defeat, or help defeat some of his greatest villains.

We miss out on a lot. Just like we would if Bats drove "Da Camino" "To the Camino Mobile Boy Wonder!!!!!" :D

[portland2002]

Why do you assume Parker testing his webshooters would be cut? It would fit in the movie just as well as the scene where Tobey Maguire shoots organic webbing all over his room.

What about Dr. Ock? His powers werent biological, they were mechanical. The movies allowed for mechanical marvels such as Green Goblin's glider and Dr.Ock's mechanical tentacles, I dont see what so absurd about a webshooting device.

Just like Sam Raimi, you underestimate Peter Parker's skill and resourcefullness. Parker is smarter than you and me. He routinely matches wits with mad scientist and evil geniuses. He can whip up a special web formula to counter some villians special power in minutes. If you made a movie about Sherlock Holmes would you dumb down the character to make him more believable? No, that would defeat the purpose of telling the story.

Parker created the webshooters and webbing formula in days. That what the character is capable of. He's not your average teenager as the movies would have you believe.

Peter Parker makes a million dollar costume without any knowledge of tailorship and the audience believes it right away. Just like time travel in the "Back to the Future" films people accept science-fiction because its fun and imaginative. A time traveling car is silly, but the fact that its a cool idea causes ppl to go along with it. The truth is the movie universe allowed the quick invention of webshooters by a teenager. It doesnt require some elaborate fantasy world. The idea just simply needed to be introduced and the audience would happily go along for the ride.

Great post. :up: :up:

[Cudzo]

OOOkay, all caught up... well, in this thread anyway.. in the topic (strayed topic) of whether it would have been better to have mech web shooters in the movie vrs. organic shooters... ... personaly, i really think its a draw.

Mech shooters: from all i've read, there are two main arguments for this.
1) it would be truer to the soarce material.
2) It would show how genius that peter parker actually possesses.

there is no argument that peters intelect is a large part of his persona. In the comic, and in the movie. the question that comes to mind then is whether the lack of his invention of web shooters detracts from his genius as its protraid on film. My feeling is no. In the movie, especially the second one, where he intelectually is on the same level as doctor octavius as far as his theories go is a strong indication of where his inteligence level is. But contrast to that question, it does detract from the utility of his inteligence.

organic shooters: there again are two points i feel about why they went this route, that is:
1)the economic reality of peters condition and
2)the desire for the audience to relate to him.

Peter may have been a genius for his age. maybe even a prodigy. but he was also poor. in the first movie, uncle ben did not have a job. and when he died, that made money even more scarce. In the second, he was close to being evicted. that was peters economic reality in the movie. and in that context, while he may have had the intelect to invent the blueprint of webshooters, you can't get the parts to make it at your local hardware store. and trust me, from people i know who have had things build for them for mass production, having even a prototype made of anything is not cheap. most people need funding from some soarce ( the university through a grant or a company paying for it). that is economic reality, and that leads to the second point.

The desire to have the audience identify with peter. If peter somehow came up with webshooters, many would wonder where he came up with the resoarces, when the whole movie was trying to show his lack of resoarses. while yes, the movie is fantacy, the producing team wants people to be able to put themselves in peters shoes, to be able to relate with him, and that means economic reality. and having him invent webshooters ever so slightly compromises that.

So, would have mech web shooters made the movie better? maybe, but they just as easily could have made it worse.. but what to do i care, i'd watch it anyway in ignorant bliss. :rolleyes:

[Cudzo]

We miss out on a lot. Just like we would if Bats drove "Da Camino" "To the Camino Mobile Boy Wonder!!!!!" :D

I'm sold ! Off that line alone, batman should drive "Da Camino" lmao

[X-Punisher]

Raimi's excuse for not using webshooters was realism. A teenager couldnt create something a major corporation hasnt made (coughnapstercough). Well now he may be using Sandman, one of the least realistic villians in marvel universe. Does that mean we'll see synthetic webbing in Peter Parker's future as well? hmmmm.



When Peter Parker got bit by the radioactive spider the spider transfored knoledge on how to make the webbing and also Peter Parker was a total science nerd. Another fun fact is that Raimi didnt use the web shooters in the movie the web was organic.

[Visionary]

Does the Camino Mobile come in black?

[Cudzo]

Does the Camino Mobile come in black?

yes, but it has a KICK ASS painting of a bat on the hood!

[TheSlag]

OOOkay, all caught up... well, in this thread anyway.. in the topic (strayed topic) of whether it would have been better to have mech web shooters in the movie vrs. organic shooters... ... personaly, i really think its a draw.

Mech shooters: from all i've read, there are two main arguments for this.
1) it would be truer to the soarce material.
2) It would show how genius that peter parker actually possesses.

there is no argument that peters intelect is a large part of his persona. In the comic, and in the movie. the question that comes to mind then is whether the lack of his invention of web shooters detracts from his genius as its protraid on film. My feeling is no. In the movie, especially the second one, where he intelectually is on the same level as doctor octavius as far as his theories go is a strong indication of where his inteligence level is. But contrast to that question, it does detract from the utility of his inteligence.

organic shooters: there again are two points i feel about why they went this route, that is:
1)the economic reality of peters condition and
2)the desire for the audience to relate to him.

Peter may have been a genius for his age. maybe even a prodigy. but he was also poor. in the first movie, uncle ben did not have a job. and when he died, that made money even more scarce. In the second, he was close to being evicted. that was peters economic reality in the movie. and in that context, while he may have had the intelect to invent the blueprint of webshooters, you can't get the parts to make it at your local hardware store. and trust me, from people i know who have had things build for them for mass production, having even a prototype made of anything is not cheap. most people need funding from some soarce ( the university through a grant or a company paying for it). that is economic reality, and that leads to the second point.

The desire to have the audience identify with peter. If peter somehow came up with webshooters, many would wonder where he came up with the resoarces, when the whole movie was trying to show his lack of resoarses. while yes, the movie is fantacy, the producing team wants people to be able to put themselves in peters shoes, to be able to relate with him, and that means economic reality. and having him invent webshooters ever so slightly compromises that.

So, would have mech web shooters made the movie better? maybe, but they just as easily could have made it worse.. but what to do i care, i'd watch it anyway in ignorant bliss. :rolleyes:

Two things:

1) When making a post about intelligence of the character, I would suggest spell checking to help "validate" your opinions. ;) (Just slaggin you my man)

2) So the audience can relate to Peter easier with the organic webbing huh? Organic webbing? He developed a new gland, with spinnerets in his wrist, and "this" :eek:.... they can relate to... "easier"

[TheSlag]

I'm sold ! Off that line alone, batman should drive "Da Camino" lmao

Yep. A cross between Chico and the Man... and Batman.

[spider-jide]

OOOkay, all caught up... well, in this thread anyway.. in the topic (strayed topic) of whether it would have been better to have mech web shooters in the movie vrs. organic shooters... ... personaly, i really think its a draw.

Mech shooters: from all i've read, there are two main arguments for this.
1) it would be truer to the soarce material.
2) It would show how genius that peter parker actually possesses.

there is no argument that peters intelect is a large part of his persona. In the comic, and in the movie. the question that comes to mind then is whether the lack of his invention of web shooters detracts from his genius as its protraid on film. My feeling is no. In the movie, especially the second one, where he intelectually is on the same level as doctor octavius as far as his theories go is a strong indication of where his inteligence level is. But contrast to that question, it does detract from the utility of his inteligence.

organic shooters: there again are two points i feel about why they went this route, that is:
1)the economic reality of peters condition and
2)the desire for the audience to relate to him.

Peter may have been a genius for his age. maybe even a prodigy. but he was also poor. in the first movie, uncle ben did not have a job. and when he died, that made money even more scarce. In the second, he was close to being evicted. that was peters economic reality in the movie. and in that context, while he may have had the intelect to invent the blueprint of webshooters, you can't get the parts to make it at your local hardware store. and trust me, from people i know who have had things build for them for mass production, having even a prototype made of anything is not cheap. most people need funding from some soarce ( the university through a grant or a company paying for it). that is economic reality, and that leads to the second point.

The desire to have the audience identify with peter. If peter somehow came up with webshooters, many would wonder where he came up with the resoarces, when the whole movie was trying to show his lack of resoarses. while yes, the movie is fantacy, the producing team wants people to be able to put themselves in peters shoes, to be able to relate with him, and that means economic reality. and having him invent webshooters ever so slightly compromises that.

So, would have mech web shooters made the movie better? maybe, but they just as easily could have made it worse.. but what to do i care, i'd watch it anyway in ignorant bliss. :rolleyes:

Well personally i dont understand why Raimi decided to use organics other than his weak argument of it being unrealistic. It hasn't made pete any more of a social outcast and it realy hasn't helped him outside of the costume. This is just another and one of many cut-backs on being true to the source material and further evidence of raimi's apathetic approach to telling a potntially brilliant and entertaining story.

[LarryLegend]

I'm not close to being evicted, does that lessen my ability to relate to Peter?

[Mr. Socko]

yep, webshooter from the butt would be a great addition to kill the Spiderman movies ;)

[Cudzo]

Well personally i dont understand why Raimi decided to use organics other than his of it being unrealistic. It hasn't made pete any more of a social outcast and it realy hasn't helped him outside of the costume. This is just another and one of many cut-backs on being true to the source material and further evidence of raimi's apathetic approach to telling a potntially brilliant and entertaining story.

excellent dismissal spider-jide. definet thumbs up.. yes, reminds me of how the president would handle it. this is important to note.. first, the initial dismissal / trivialization of the opinion. weak argunent

second, the change in subject .. i love this, It hasn't made pete any more of a social outcast and it realy hasn't helped him outside of the costume. the pres does that alot two, but , thats why he's on top. '

then ya have to go back to your point , which is further trivialization :This is just another and one of many cut-backs on being true to the source material

and finaly end off with what one thinks is the undisputable answer : further evidence of raimi's apathetic approach to telling a potntially brilliant and entertaining story

BOOONG!! ..lol. i'm just rassin ya.

[spider-jide]

excellent dismissal spider-jide. definet thumbs up.. yes, reminds me of how the president would handle it. this is important to note.. first, the initial dismissal / trivialization of the opinion.

second, the change in subject .. i love this, the pres does that alot two, but , thats why he's on top. '

then ya have to go back to your point , which is further trivialization :

and finaly end off with what one thinks is the undisputable answer :

BOOONG!! ..lol. i'm just rassin ya.

I've now gone back and fixed my spelling error but other than that, i merely spoke what i consider to be the truth. Raimi does have an apathetic approach towards the script and its because of that, we immediately get a flawed movie. Not cool at all.

[Danalys]

Two things:

1) When making a post about intelligence of the character, I would suggest spell checking to help "validate" your opinions. ;) (Just slaggin you my man)

2) So the audience can relate to Peter easier with the organic webbing huh? Organic webbing? He developed a new gland, with spinnerets in his wrist, and "this" :eek:.... they can relate to... "easier"

i assume they can relate to it as easily as they can with any other of peters spider powers. so that's an invalid point. try harder.

[Cudzo]

Yep. A cross between Chico and the Man... and Batman. [Batman] " Robin , keep your hands off the pre-sets "

[Robin] " holy pimp-my-ride batman! the joker totally tricked out his ride"
[Batman] "activate the batadrolics boy wonder "

[Cudzo]

I've now gone back and fixed my spelling error but other than that, i merely spoke what i consider to be the truth. Raimi does have an apathetic approach towards the script and its because of that, we immediately get a flawed movie. Not cool at all.

OOH, script, okay. sure. thats cool. different topic, diffent thread, i believe this take has already been said.

[TheSlag]

i assume they can relate to it as easily as they can with any other of peters spider powers. so that's an invalid point. try harder.


Sorry "Avis" :p

But the other powers are cool to have. Super Strength (no side effects), Ability to climb walls (side effects... hairy fingers... some already have it, and they're going to go blind too my Mama says (tell me someone got that)), Spider Agility (great in Bed), Spider-Sense (head tingles... like after my all night bender) ...

vs...

Organic webbing (bloated feeling from big honkin gland (somewhere in body... I'll leave where to your imagination)... and those embarrassing slits in the wrists... Suicide Crisis Intervention calls anyone????)

[TheSlag]

[Batman] " Robin , keep your hands off the pre-sets "

[Robin] " holy pimp-my-ride batman! the joker totally tricked out his ride"
[Batman] "activate the batadrolics boy wonder "

LMFAO... :D

[Cudzo]

Two things:

2) So the audience can relate to Peter easier with the organic webbing huh? Organic webbing? He developed a new gland, with spinnerets in his wrist, and "this" :eek:.... they can relate to... "easier"

I was saying that they might relate with his economic condition. But the webshooters, just like the rest of his powers are the fantasy. I figure, in theory, you start with the reality we all know and sooorta love... then you walk to the stargate, and walk through, then next think you know your in a desert inside some huge pyramid with backward people lving not that far away and people dressed like animals flying around shooting at you ..... err... .. maybe i'm falling asleep here lol.

[Cudzo]

Sorry "Avis" :p


Organic webbing (bloated feeling from big honkin gland (somewhere in body... I'll leave where to your imagination)... and those embarrassing slits in the wrists... Suicide Crisis Intervention calls anyone????)

lmao. well slag, that all depends on ..... the ladies ;)
{spidey} " dont' pretend your not jelous"

[Cudzo]

The desire to have the audience identify with peter. If peter somehow came up with webshooters, many would wonder where he came up with the resoarces, when the whole movie was trying to show his lack of resoarses. while yes, the movie is fantacy, the producing team wants people to be able to put themselves in peters shoes, to be able to relate with him, and that means economic reality. and having him invent webshooters ever so slightly compromises that.




i know for all of us who have read spiderman... or amazing spiderman... or specular spiderman.... ooooor peter parker as spiderman .. or that little bit that you find in the sunday morning comics, for us its the natural progression for him to have invented web shooters. Its a no brainer. But from someone who doesn't read comic books at all, all i'm saying is this theory might be more pluasable to them. Maybe.

[TheSlag]

lmao. well slag, that all depends on ..... the ladies ;)
{spidey} " dont' pretend your not jelous"

*fights urge to laugh* Loses. :up:

I think we're talking a different type gland here (swollen or not ;))

[ultimatefan]

Your statement in caps there clearly says box office success means its validated by the fans. As we both agreed The Phantom Menace disproves that. It was just your way of somehow trying to prove you are right and validate organics, and discredit those who are more true to the source material. As I've tried to point out to you the film would have been just as successful with mechs (as they were only dealt with a few minutes anyway). Your argument, that particular one, doesn't hold water.



Of course not. Just don't go in and then whine about how TIRED you are of the argument, calling the opposition "pimps". ;) You can't go in and argue and then throw up your hands in expiration because you are rebutted and not declared automatically right.



Dude, you're practically on the Sony payroll. :p ;)





OK, thats cool. We're all entitled to our opinions. Although, Its pretty safe to say you're fairly liberal in terms of how Spider-man is translated to the screen. (as long as webs don't come out the butt) ;)



You call it a crutch, I call "it" (embracing and rejoicing in a Spidey with organics, no "fire" ie wisecracks etc... and a good Doc Ock) ... blindly accepting anything they spit out.

Look at your sig man. ;)

Again, it says success in general, the word box office wasn´t used. You assumed it. and to assume makes... you know the rest.

I have every right to be tired of an argument that has been repeating itself for years and years. And the right to react to it being regurgitated once again. And I don´t care for being declared automatically right, I just defend my opinions like everyone else here.

No I´m not. I could as well think you´re on another studio´s payroll, considering your attitude...

There are TONS of things I wouldn´t accept in a Spider-Man adaptation... and I think most of them were avoided. How "liberal" I am concerns only me. I think it´s safe to say there´s very little you accept in terms of adapting and making a different interpretation of a character... That´s just not how I see it, sorry.

Call it whatever you like, it´s my opinion and my right. I can as well call thinking pretty much anything that doesn´t go straight from the page to be a bad thing being narrow-minded and nitpicky.

[The Green Goblin]

Again, it says success in general, the word box office wasn´t used. You assumed it. and to assume makes... you know the rest.

I have every right to be tired of an argument that has been repeating itself for years and years. And the right to react to it being regurgitated once again. And I don´t care for being declared automatically right, I just defend my opinions like everyone else here.

No I´m not. I could as well think you´re on another studio´s payroll, considering your attitude...

There are TONS of things I wouldn´t accept in a Spider-Man adaptation... and I think most of them were avoided. How "liberal" I am concerns only me. I think it´s safe to say there´s very little you accept in terms of adapting and making a different interpretation of a character... That´s just not how I see it, sorry.

Call it whatever you like, it´s my opinion and my right. I can as well call thinking pretty much anything that doesn´t go straight from the page to be a bad thing being narrow-minded and nitpicky.

Ah, the sound of Ultimatefan backpedaling again. :D You should have just let it go.

Here's what you said...

Not to me. And not to the majority of fans, as the success of the movies states to.

Come on ... we all know what you *meant* by that. You're saying you and your "majority" are right as evidenced by the movie's "success"; your crutch. Could have just left it with "not to me", and that would be fine but you had to add the "majority" and try to back up the OPINION further with "success". When shown examples of other movie's success not necessarily equaling quality, coupled with the fact films would have done just as well with mechs, you started backpedaling.

I have every right to be tired of an argument that has been repeating itself for years and years. And the right to react to it being regurgitated once again. And I don´t care for being declared automatically right, I just defend my opinions like everyone else here.

This is like Groundhog Day. :D Same thing over and over. Yep, you got a right to an opinion. Defend away! Just don't dive in and then halfway in whine about how TIRED you are of it. You know ... you got what you wanted, a "different interpretation" of the character. The movie was successful. Why do you feel the need to defend it? Hmmm? ;)

No I´m not. I could as well think you´re on another studio´s payroll, considering your attitude...

Ha Ha, "my attitude", just because I won't worship at Raimi's feet and easily accept what he presents, even though its not really true to the character/characters of Spider-Man? Yeah, I work for WB really and sabotaged them with that stupid Batmobile. :yellow:

Look at your sig again ".. long time member of ATR (Allegiance to Raimi)..." it would appear your allegiance is to Raimi and not to Spider-Man ... nothing wrong with that, just how it looks from here.

There are TONS of things I wouldn´t accept in a Spider-Man adaptation... and I think most of them were avoided. How "liberal" I am concerns only me. I think it´s safe to say there´s very little you accept in terms of adapting and making a different interpretation of a character... That´s just not how I see it, sorry

You're sort of on record of pretty much accepting *anything* (including Batman driving a Nexel Cup Car and Superman without a cape) right up to and excluding (but just barely ;) ) webs coming out of the ass.

You nailed it on the head though. I do not want a "different interpretation" of a character when it comes to Spider-Man. I want the real deal, not one that just looks like it. Still waiting. And I think you just explained why you're so accepting of things as you, are "open to interpretation". Personally I do not care for the sleepy, not funny, non-wisecracking, lovesick " (all) about a girl", interpretation of Spider-Man. But, as always, I hold out hope for improvement in 3.

And thats pretty much it. I'm not condemning you for your opinion Ultimatefan. What goes against my grain is this idea that since the movies are "successful", they were automatically done right, and that that "success" somehow validates their opinions, eg organics ... It does not. One more time, the movies would have been just as "successful" with mechs. (although there would still be pieces of the heart of the character missing). I still don't see the need, the almost obsession with you, to defend them, especially since you claim to be so TIRED of the subject. :confused: But, going back to the root of this argument, I also don't see how you can do a character justice without his trademark. Guess this is where we differ.

*Waits for 'fan to once gain deny he wasn't implying "success of the movies" had anything to do with box office* ;)

[screech_turbo]

in the spideyverse, i think both are equally realistic.

[ultimatefan]

Ah, the sound of Ultimatefan backpedaling again. :D You should have just let it go.

Here's what you said...



Come on ... we all know what you *meant* by that. You're saying you and your "majority" are right as evidenced by the movie's "success"; your crutch. Could have just left it with "not to me", and that would be fine but you had to add the "majority" and try to back up the OPINION further with "success". When shown examples of other movie's success not necessarily equaling quality, coupled with the fact films would have done just as well with mechs, you started backpedaling.



This is like Groundhog Day. :D Same thing over and over. Yep, you got a right to an opinion. Defend away! Just don't dive in and then halfway in whine about how TIRED you are of it. You know ... you got what you wanted, a "different interpretation" of the character. The movie was successful. Why do you feel the need to defend it? Hmmm? ;)



Ha Ha, "my attitude", just because I won't worship at Raimi's feet and easily accept what he presents, even though its not really true to the character/characters of Spider-Man? Yeah, I work for WB really and sabotaged them with that stupid Batmobile. :yellow:

Look at your sig again ".. long time member of ATR (Allegiance to Raimi)..." it would appear your allegiance is to Raimi and not to Spider-Man ... nothing wrong with that, just how it looks from here.



You're sort of on record of pretty much accepting *anything* (including Batman driving a Nexel Cup Car and Superman without a cape) right up to and excluding (but just barely ;) ) webs coming out of the ass.

You nailed it on the head though. I do not want a "different interpretation" of a character when it comes to Spider-Man. I want the real deal, not one that just looks like it. Still waiting. And I think you just explained why you're so accepting of things as you, are "open to interpretation". Personally I do not care for the sleepy, not funny, non-wisecracking, lovesick " (all) about a girl", interpretation of Spider-Man. But, as always, I hold out hope for improvement in 3.

And thats pretty much it. I'm not condemning you for your opinion Ultimatefan. What goes against my grain is this idea that since the movies are "successful", they were automatically done right, and that that "success" somehow validates their opinions, eg organics ... It does not. One more time, the movies would have been just as "successful" with mechs. (although there would still be pieces of the heart of the character missing). I still don't see the need, the almost obsession with you, to defend them, especially since you claim to be so TIRED of the subject. :confused: But, going back to the root of this argument, I also don't see how you can do a character justice without his trademark. Guess this is where we differ.

*Waits for 'fan to once gain deny he wasn't implying "success of the movies" had anything to do with box office* ;)

Success means a lot of things. Approval by most fans is a form of success. Critical acclaim is a form of success. Look any site with Spider-Man fans and you´ll see most of them approve of the movie.

The movie is successful yeah, but the constant bringing back of the same thing again and again here is so insistent, even though it comes from a small minority, that at some point it can be misinterpreted as the opinion of the fandom, even though it´s not. If you people are gonna keep bringing up the same thing again and again, we have the right to defend it again and again.

You have every right not to care about another interpretation of the character, just don´t go bashing and calling "blindly accepting" anyone who just doesn´t happen to agree with you. I´m open to this interpretation of the character, I don´t find him sleepy, not funny, I don´t think trying to make him wisecrack a hundred times in the middle of a fight would work, and romance is a big part of his life since the sixties... That´s just how I see it and all your sarcasm is not gonna change that.

Like I said, I haven´t touched on this subject for months... If we just stop with the sarcastic remarks that aren´t going anywhere anyway and admit we just have different points of view and there´s no need to bash each other for it, I´m gonna stop right here. Be civil and so will I.

[The Green Goblin]

Success means a lot of things. Approval by most fans is a form of success. Critical acclaim is a form of success. Look any site with Spider-Man fans and you´ll see most of them approve of the movie.

back back back back back ... :p

Not even going to ask how you define "approval" or "fan", but apparently you've conducted a world-wide door-to-door survey, since you claim to not be talking about box office success. ;)

The movie is successful yeah, but the constant bringing back of the same thing again and again here is so insistent, even though it comes from a small minority, that at some point it can be misinterpreted as the opinion of the fandom, even though it´s not. If you people are gonna keep bringing up the same thing again and again, we have the right to defend it again and again.


Again with the "you people" like YOU are in some kind of huge majority looking down on the tiny "few" that demand more than a similarity to their hero, JUST because the movies have been successfull. Once again, they did not do well BECAUSE of the organics. OVerall you are still trying to claim some sort of "victory" over so-called traditionalists by wrapping yourself in the success of the movies. Groundhog day again.


You have every right not to care about another interpretation of the character, just don´t go bashing and calling "blindly accepting" anyone who just doesn´t happen to agree with you. I´m open to this interpretation of the character, I don´t find him sleepy, not funny, I don´t think trying to make him wisecrack a hundred times in the middle of a fight would work, and romance is a big part of his life since the sixties... That´s just how I see it and all your sarcasm is not gonna change that.

Actually your quote was DIFFERENT interpretation, which is just a wee bit stronger than "other" interpretation IMO. The 'blindly accepting" may have been unecessary, and I was just poking a little fun pushing it to the extreme. ;) But it does kind of seem that way with you at times to be honest. And again your sig does not help. ;)

Romance, yes, all about ONE girl from cover to cover ... um ... *no*.

Perfectly fine how you see it, just don't use the success and popularity of the films to try and validate your opinions. The films are a success because of Spider-Man, not organics, or mechs. The general movie-going audience is not that familiar with the history and mythos, so they obviously aren't going to know the difference in organics and a Doc Ock who goes good. In 2000/01, there was a HUGE outcry over the organics. Well, it seems Raimi handled them relatively well, that is, by not beating us over the head with them. They were only addressed a few seconds in the cafeteria. Most everyone was able to look past that (me included) and enjoy the film. Just because the outcry died down does not mean some, in their heart of hearts, would not still like to see mechanical web-shooters. It just means Raimi was smart enough to de-emphasize them (compared to what Cameron wanted to do) and overall, make a compelling, entertaining film.

Don't think a "hundred" wisecracks would work in a fight either, but come on now, they can do a better job than what they have and you know it. Its one of the classic parts of the heart of the character I've been talking about. Don't know if its the script, the directing or even some of Tobey (he is a "sleepy" actor IMO) but they can do better. And I don't mean with quantity, but rather with quality.

Like I said, I haven´t touched on this subject for months... If we just stop with the sarcastic remarks that aren´t going anywhere anyway and admit we just have different points of view and there´s no need to bash each other for it, I´m gonna stop right here. Be civil and so will I.

So why did you feel the need to do it now? Do you think that just because the movies are popular and "successful" that the "few" pro-mechs/anti-organics proponents would stop being true to their own beliefs and magically conform to the new establishment. "Oooo, don't dare dis organics or you're a Mr Parker". :rolleyes:

Fair enough, I know how TIRED you get. :p ;) Didn't really see either of us being uncivil, just passionately discussing what we believe in. I do respect your opinion, just not when you attempt to project across the majority (as I pointed out, many of which, do not truly know the difference ie, general movie-goers.

[ultimatefan]

back back back back back ... :p

Not even going to ask how you define "approval" or "fan", but apparently you've conducted a world-wide door-to-door survey, since you claim to not be talking about box office success. ;)



Again with the "you people" like YOU are in some kind of huge majority looking down on the tiny "few" that demand more than a similarity to their hero, JUST because the movies have been successfull. Once again, they did not do well BECAUSE of the organics. OVerall you are still trying to claim some sort of "victory" over so-called traditionalists by wrapping yourself in the success of the movies. Groundhog day again.




Actually your quote was DIFFERENT interpretation, which is just a wee bit stronger than "other" interpretation IMO. The 'blindly accepting" may have been unecessary, and I was just poking a little fun pushing it to the extreme. ;) But it does kind of seem that way with you at times to be honest. And again your sig does not help. ;)

Romance, yes, all about ONE girl from cover to cover ... um ... *no*.

Perfectly fine how you see it, just don't use the success and popularity of the films to try and validate your opinions. The films are a success because of Spider-Man, not organics, or mechs. The general movie-going audience is not that familiar with the history and mythos, so they obviously aren't going to know the difference in organics and a Doc Ock who goes good. In 2000/01, there was a HUGE outcry over the organics. Well, it seems Raimi handled them relatively well, that is, by not beating us over the head with them. They were only addressed a few seconds in the cafeteria. Most everyone was able to look past that (me included) and enjoy the film. Just because the outcry died down does not mean some, in their heart of hearts, would not still like to see mechanical web-shooters. It just means Raimi was smart enough to de-emphasize them (compared to what Cameron wanted to do) and overall, make a compelling, entertaining film.

Don't think a "hundred" wisecracks would work in a fight either, but come on now, they can do a better job than what they have and you know it. Its one of the classic parts of the heart of the character I've been talking about. Don't know if its the script, the directing or even some of Tobey (he is a "sleepy" actor IMO) but they can do better. And I don't mean with quantity, but rather with quality.



So why did you feel the need to do it now? Do you think that just because the movies are popular and "successful" that the "few" pro-mechs/anti-organics proponents would stop being true to their own beliefs and magically conform to the new establishment. "Oooo, don't dare dis organics or you're a Mr Parker". :rolleyes:

Fair enough, I know how TIRED you get. :p ;) Didn't really see either of us being uncivil, just passionately discussing what we believe in. I do respect your opinion, just not when you attempt to project across the majority (as I pointed out, many of which, do not truly know the difference ie, general movie-goers.
It´s not a matter of "conforming", it´s just that nothing has been said here that hasn´t been said a gazillion times already. I heard "the movie would have been successful with the mechs" more times than can be accounted, and it remains something we´ll simply never know anyway.

I think Tobey handles comedy fine. I don´t have a problem with MJ, but the series isn´t over, who says it´ll be always only one girl in his life?

Don´t want me to mention the popularity of the movie, fine, but as far as I have seen, from my humble experience most fans don´t have a major problem with Raimi´s changes. That´s all. We´re fans and we´re passionate, we´re just not all passionate in the exact same way or about the exact same things.

[The Green Goblin]

It´s not a matter of "conforming", it´s just that nothing has been said here that hasn´t been said a gazillion times already. I heard "the movie would have been successful with the mechs" more times than can be accounted, and it remains something we´ll simply never know anyway.


Well, you did kind of stir the pot by asking "...why shouldn´t he have organic web?" :o

Regardless of how many times you've heard the arguement (and refused to believe it) its pretty safe to say they would have. The organics scene was so small and miniscule, (kinda makes ya wonder why I even bother to argue about it ;) ) that the change would not have made a drop in the bucket's bit a difference ... either way.

I still think the organics with the webshooters/regulators, that they built and scrapped at the last minute, would have been the perfect compromise.

I think Tobey handles comedy fine. I don´t have a problem with MJ, but the series isn´t over, who says it´ll be always only one girl in his life?

Like I said, might just be the director, and not Tobey's acting. Just seems like he's sleepwalking sometimes and his voice is not that well-suited for Spider-Man IMO. And yes, these are rat-bastard fanboy nitpicks. :D

Yeah, still time to change things up and and/or throw a curve ball with MJ (seeing as how you and I differ on traditional character vs screen interpretation, we won't even go there ;) ).


We´re fans and we´re passionate, we´re just not all passionate in the exact same way or about the exact same things.

Agreed, and thats what keeps these forums from becoming boring. :cool:

[ultimatefan]

Well, you did kind of stir the pot by asking "...why shouldn´t he have organic web?" :o

Regardless of how many times you've heard the arguement (and refused to believe it) its pretty safe to say they would have. The organics scene was so small and miniscule, (kinda makes ya wonder why I even bother to argue about it ;) ) that the change would not have made a drop in the bucket's bit a difference ... either way.

I still think the organics with the webshooters/regulators, that they built and scrapped at the last minute, would have been the perfect compromise.



Like I said, might just be the director, and not Tobey's acting. Just seems like he's sleepwalking sometimes and his voice is not that well-suited for Spider-Man IMO. And yes, these are rat-bastard fanboy nitpicks. :D

Yeah, still time to change things up and and/or throw a curve ball with MJ (seeing as how you and I differ on traditional character vs screen interpretation, we won't even go there ;) ).



Agreed, and thats what keeps these forums from becoming boring. :cool:
I like to think the way science does... nothing is safe to say till it´s proven without a doubt.

His eyes can look a little sleepy sometimes, but´s just a look, not his acting, IMO. I think his voice suits a character who´s awkward and kind of an outsider... He definitely shouldn´t sound like Barry White.

Well, we agree on something. :)

[ElectroFlare]

One thing I want to say about organics vs. mechanics. I read the first couple pages and I must comment on it, even if it means the wrath of the Green Goblin will come after me :bomb:

Stan Lee's original concept was organic webshooters. He disliked the idea, and went with the mechanicals.

During the timeframe of the movie(or maybe after it was finished, I'm not sure) Stan Lee admits that the organics would be more realistic.

I just had to throw that out there...

[Swordmaster]

Sandman. a man made out of sand. please

[blind_fury]

Stan Lee's original concept was organic webshooters. He disliked the idea, and went with the mechanicals.
He disliked it for a reason. Organics are too simplistic. A four year old couldve came up with the idea.

During the timeframe of the movie(or maybe after it was finished, I'm not sure) Stan Lee admits that the organics would be more realistic.

Stan Lee has also said on a number of occasions that he thought they couldve found a way to put mechanical webshooters in the movies and wish they had.

[ElectroFlare]

A four year old could think it up because it makes sense...not everything a four year does is inappropriate for a comic book. And the thing about webbing coming from the anus, or near it, that's the most appropriate place for a spider to have spinneretes, considering their body structure. Wrists seem to be the most appropriate place for a human, and spider/human DNA combined, if combining in such a great way as to produce spider-man's gifted powers, would most likely place the spinneretes in the wrists. But then again, I'm no expert on anatomy.


That is true, Stan Lee was probably following the reasoning of Green Goblin and several others, that it is truer to the source material. This makes sense, as Spider-man is Marvel's icon, and Stan Lee's creation...wouldn't you want a movie based off something you wrote true to the sources?

[blind_fury]

Sam Raimi's a hypocrite.

[SentinelMind]

^he has a different opinion. get over it.

[TheRiddlerkid]

Webshooters.

Webshooter are something that needs to be built and created, along with fluid and preperation. something Peter would never have or anyone for that matter. It is a substance that does not exsist.

Sand is in exsistences is it not. I mean when I go to the beach there is sand there right? not Web fluid. I can beleieve that someone can be forged together with Sand more that some one can make something from a non exsistent substance.

Sand is something we all are fond of.
And what is Web fluid, what is it made of?

[Spidey-Jason]

Oh..another webshooters thread!Just what we need:rolleyes:

[Doctor Goblipus]

I always thought that he didnt use webshooters because they would be bulky and clearly visible through the suit.

In movies with a man with spider-like powers, a crazed sictzo with super strenght, and a Doctor with four mehcanical arms that he controls with his brain, I cant belive were arguing about realism

Guys it been 4 years. Give it up on the webshooters, God Damn.

[Caliber]

I always thought that he didnt use webshooters because they would be bulky and clearly visible through the suit.

In movies with a man with spider-like powers, a crazed sictzo with super strenght, and a Doctor with four mehcanical arms that he controls with his brain, I cant belive were arguing about realism

Guys it been 4 years. Give it up on the webshooters, God Damn.


Thank you because there have been two movies and should webshooters shouldn't even talked about. We've just discovered the villian talk about that.

[Doctor Goblipus]

OK, THC is going to ROCK as Sandman!!!!!

[daveswb]

I thought he didnt use mechanical webshooters because he thought it would be too difficult to explain how they work to the general public :confused:

Actually I thought I heard that Stan Lee origioanlly wanted organic web shooters, but he was afraid how the general public would accept that. He thought it may have been too much for the kids in the 60's. At least that's what he said in an interview after one came out.

[Triligors]

Well, didn't Sandman get caught up in a nuclear reactor type thing with sand exploding around him or something like that?

That seems alot more realistic because there is actually science about it that could happen.

.

[The Lizard]

Heh - very timely bump for this thread.

I say that Sandman is less realistic than mech webshooters by far.

However, Sandman's lack of realism won't stop me from enjoying SM3 just like the mech shooters wouldn't have stopped me (or anyone else for that matter) from enjoying the first Spidey movie. ;)

[citizenpain]

sandman vs. webshooters? w..t..F?

how are these two things being compared? having to explain all this extra bs about peter's father working on this formula and peter finishing it and making webbing for himself out of it was avoided probably just because it makes perfect sense (and easier story-telling) for spidey to gain the ability to shoot webs along with the rest of his powers. as for sandman, how is he any less realistic than the green goblin or doc ock? some of you have way too much free time on ya hands. :cool:

[The Lizard]

sandman vs. webshooters? w..t..F?
How are these two things being compared? Having to explain all this extra bs about peter's father working on this formula and peter finishing it and making webbing for himself out of it was avoided probably just because it makes perfect sense (and easier story-telling) for spidey to gain the ability to shoot webs along with the rest of his powers.
"Perfect sense?" That's a totally subjective statement of course, but that debate has already been explored in countless other threads already. I'll just say that "all the extra BS" that could have explained the mech shooters sufficiently for the first movie would have taken up about 1 or 2 minutes of screen time.

as for sandman, how is he any less realistic than the green goblin or doc ock? some of you have way too much free time on ya hands. :cool:
From a physics standpoint, a guy who can disintegrate into millions of tiny sandlike particles and reintegrate into a human being again is a lot more far-out than GG or Ock.
(Although GG's glider being able to lift the tram in the first movie was pushing it ;) )

[Smegger56]

If anything, both can't really exist in the real world, but that shouldn't matter.

Both are incredibly important components in the spiderman mythos. It's all good having realism in there, but you need fantsticle elements in a superhero film to make it fun and exciting.

The web shooters issue is a big one, as it is a big part of the character. It shows his intelligence and plays really well for the story... like he's run out of webbing fighting a villian, chasing a villian, escaping from a villian etc. Also, with Sandman in particular, he couldn't use normal webbing to stop him, so spidey had to create a new web formula. But because of organics, this will never happen.

Those who are ok with the fact spidey has no shooters, then thats a little shocking, because the shooters a a big part of the REAL spiderman character.

[Smegger56]

Also, in a cartoon episode of spiderman (90's) where spidey meets his biggest fan, a little girl, she asks him about his shooters, and he replies along the lines of 'When the spider bit me, i think it passed on it's knowledge of webbing.'

A bit far fetched, but a nice reason to how he was able to make the fluid in the first place. And since the spider in the films was genetically altered, and the comics it was radioactive, why couldn't the spider have done this.

If you can have a guy turn to sand, then you can have a spider thats altered or radioactive, pass on its knowledge of webbing through a bite.

[Saph]

In comic book land, Sandman is more realistic.

You see, in the world of comic books, physics are different. But the everyday things are the same. Peter Parker may be able to crawl up walls in comic book land, but he still wouldn't have the money to come up with webshooters.

The reason why Sandman is more believable because the accident he was involved in was:

-By chance.
-Government funded.

Peter Parker buying all the chemicals and mechanisms for webshooters despite being poor is not realistic because:

-There is no plausible explanation.

I don't see why Stan Lee decided to leave out Spider-Man's ability to make webbing naturally, it just doesn't make sense to me. That's why I prefer Spidey having organic webbing in the movies.

[THWIP*]

AHHH........I SEE "THE BEAST" HAS REARED IT'S UGLY HEAD AGAIN. :down:o

[Saph]

AHHH........I SEE "THE BEAST" HAS REARED IT'S UGLY HEAD AGAIN. :down:o
Huh? :confused:

[Saph]

Oh wait, I get it now. You mean the organics debate. :) :up:

[THWIP*]

Oh wait, I get it now. You mean the organics debate. :) :up:


YEAH.....THAT. :o :(

[The Lizard]

Peter Parker buying all the chemicals and mechanisms for webshooters despite being poor is not realistic because:

-There is no plausible explanation.


How about he inheirited some lab equipment from his scientist father, a la the Ultimate Spider-Man comics?

Yes, I'm playing the webshooter debate game again - sorry. Old habits die hard. :p

[Saph]

How about he inheirited some lab equipment from his scientist father, a la the Ultimate Spider-Man comics?

Yes, I'm playing the webshooter debate game again - sorry. Old habits die hard. :p
I'm speaking 616 Spidey.

[Smegger56]

I can't see why the webshooters can't be introduced now, since sandman is now the villian.

[rscal]

I thought he didnt use mechanical webshooters because he thought it would be too difficult to explain how they work to the general public :confused:
thats a dumb excuse since he never explained how he got his final costume either.

[Smegger56]

Very true.

[rscal]

In comic book land, Sandman is more realistic.

You see, in the world of comic books, physics are different. But the everyday things are the same. Peter Parker may be able to crawl up walls in comic book land, but he still wouldn't have the money to come up with webshooters.

The reason why Sandman is more believable because the accident he was involved in was:

-By chance.
-Government funded.

Peter Parker buying all the chemicals and mechanisms for webshooters despite being poor is not realistic because:

-There is no plausible explanation.

I don't see why Stan Lee decided to leave out Spider-Man's ability to make webbing naturally, it just doesn't make sense to me. That's why I prefer Spidey having organic webbing in the movies.
well he didn't develop the web shooters until he had gotten the entertainment gig. and also since he was a above average chemistry studentmaybe he got the chemicals at wholesale through the school. but stan had peter create the web shooters to show what a genius peter is. making it plausible for him to figure out ideas to defeat the villians that an average high school student would not be able to do.

[The Lizard]

I'm speaking 616 Spidey.

That's just it -- it doesn't really matter as long as it's a good story idea. 616 Spidey didn't get bitten by a genetically engineered Spider, lose Uncle Ben in a carjacking or have a crush on MJ since elementary school either.

[Saph]

well he didn't develop the web shooters until he had gotten the entertainment gig.How would that have helped? Remember in ASM #1, Spidfer-Man couldn't cash in his paycheck without revealing his identity. and also since he was a above average chemistry studentmaybe he got the chemicals at wholesale through the school.I really doubt you can get the chemicals to make web fluid from school. but stan had peter create the web shooters to show what a genius peter is. making it plausible for him to figure out ideas to defeat the villians that an average high school student would not be able to do.I don't see how sucking Sandman up with a vacuum cleaner and spraying Electro with a fire hose (like in the early comics) requires the intellect of a genius. That's saturday morning cartoon knowledge.

[Saph]

That's just it -- it doesn't really matter as long as it's a good story idea. 616 Spidey didn't get bitten by a genetically engineered Spider, lose Uncle Ben in a carjacking or have a crush on MJ since elementary school either.
You are moving on to a different topic. My post was just comparing 616 Spidey and 616 Sandman, not debating what the movies should use.

[Smegger56]

But by accepting the loss of the webshooters, you are accepting the loss of one of spideys most important elements.

[rscal]

Webshooters.

Webshooter are something that needs to be built and created, along with fluid and preperation. something Peter would never have or anyone for that matter. It is a substance that does not exsist.

Sand is in exsistences is it not. I mean when I go to the beach there is sand there right? not Web fluid. I can beleieve that someone can be forged together with Sand more that some one can make something from a non exsistent substance.

Sand is something we all are fond of.
And what is Web fluid, what is it made of?
chemicals . scientists now are trying to synthesis web fluid. so nothing can be created if it doesn't exist previously ummm that is what inventors do. and webshooters wouldn't be that hard i mean they have silly string shooters same concept he would just have to modify it quite a bit. but then peter is a genuis so thts possible. hell webshooters and web fluid are more plausible than spidermans powers let alone sandman.

[Smegger56]

:up: spot on.

[gildea]

get

over

it

[Smegger56]

go

a

way

if

you

don't

have

anything

good

to

say

[TheSlag]

go

a

way

if

you

don't

have

anything

good

to

say


F _ C K

_ F F

Care to buy a vowel Vanna?

[Smegger56]

wow, can you get any more constructive and original. Please, stop, i can't take your good argument.

I wish i had the capacity to be like that... so witty and clever.


My dear god. Can you make a point or argument with out getting your knickers in a twist.

[TheSlag]

wow, can you get any more constructive and original. Please, stop, i can't take your good argument.

I wish i had the capacity to be like that... so witty and clever.


My dear god. Can you make a point or argument with out getting your knickers in a twist.

LMAO. It was meant as more of a joke than anything else, but I still don't like anyone telling someone else they CANNOT, or SHOULD NOT post in any thread they want to. But after having read it all in again, I can kind of see your point/post to gildea, to a point, since she basically did not add anything to the argument. Still think she has the right to post her opinion though (that it's no big deal to her), without being told she should not be posting.

[Smegger56]

LMAO. It was meant as more of a joke than anything else, but I still don't like anyone telling someone else they CANNOT, or SHOULD NOT post in any thread they want to. But after having read it all in again, I can kind of see your point/post to gildea, to a point, since she basically did not add anything to the argument. Still think she has the right to post her opinion though (that it's no big deal to her), without being told she should not be posting.

If it was meant as a joke, i apologise more than anything. Today has just been crap for me, but like i said, i apologise.

[TheSlag]

If it was meant as a joke, i apologise more than anything. Today has just been crap for me, but like i said, i apologise.

No prob. Like I said, I think I jumped the gun with my post after rereading your post and the reply it was to... think your post where you said "go away if you don't have anything good to say" threw me off... thinking you disagreed with her opinion. Where it was more a point she did not really state her opinion in regards to the subject of the thread.

And crap day... trust me, I can associate with ya. ;)

Hope it gets better.

[Smegger56]

No prob. Like I said, I think I jumped the gun with my post after rereading your post and the reply it was to... think your post where you said "go away if you don't have anything good to say" threw me off... thinking you disagreed with her opinion. Where it was more a point she did not really state her opinion in regards to the subject of the thread.

And crap day... trust me, I can associate with ya. ;)

Hope it gets better.

cheers my friend :up:

[TheSlag]

Back on Subject... Obviously the less realistic is Sandman. But in defense of Sandy, not that I care to defend him as I think he's a bad choice for SM3... it is a comic book movie. Albeit, one that had strived to stay as firmly planted in reality as it could (given its subject matter) and still be a semblance of a superhero movie, and a spider-Man movie til now.

I fear they have blown that approach with this choice of villain.

[The Squirrel]

Venom wouldn't be realistic either.

[The Lizard]

it is a comic book movie. Albeit, one that had strived to stay as firmly planted in reality as it could (given its subject matter) and still be a semblance of a superhero movie, and a spider-Man movie til now.

Yes, Sandman does sort of cross the line into borderline fantasy as opposed to somewhat realistic science fiction.

While it's true that both GG and Ock did some scientifically impossible things (notably the GG glider-lifting-tram bit and Octavius' mini sun in an unprotected crowd), the villains themselves and their accidental powers were relatable to reality at some level.

Sandman, Hydroman, Swarm, Man-Wolf and the like have powers that seem more like magic than actual science. Again, I'm not saying this would keep me from enjoying SM3, but it does ramp up the 'suspension of disbelief' requirement to a level far higher than a short mech-shooter origin scene in the first movie ever would have.

[TheSlag]

Venom wouldn't be realistic either.

IMO, Venom, or the concept, is more realistic than a man made of Sand. And I'm more forgiving of Venom as his story and alter ego is much more interesting than Sandman's.

[TheSlag]

Yes, Sandman does sort of cross the line into borderline fantasy as opposed to somewhat realistic science fiction.

While it's true that both GG and Ock did some scientifically impossible things (notably the GG glider-lifting-tram bit and Octavius' mini sun in an unprotected crowd), the villains themselves and their accidental powers were relatable to reality at some level.

Sandman, Hydroman, Swarm, Man-Wolf and the like have powers that seem more like magic than actual science. Again, I'm not saying this would keep me from enjoying SM3, but it does ramp up the 'suspension of disbelief' requirement to a level far higher than a short mech-shooter origin scene in the first movie ever would have.

Agreed. :up:

I'm sure Sandman will provide some "kewl" action scenes. Little bit of tongue in cheek there. ;) Hopefully (and thankfully), Sandman will basically be there just for that, action scenes and helping to give time for the real villain's development/setup.

[BruceWayne05]

Raimi's excuse for not using webshooters was realism. A teenager couldnt create something a major corporation hasnt made (coughnapstercough). Well now he may be using Sandman, one of the least realistic villians in marvel universe. Does that mean we'll see synthetic webbing in Peter Parker's future as well? hmmmm.

it's not that it's less realistic, but the webshooters would take longer to explain because they would have to devote a little segment to their development, and how he got the resources and all (he wasn't in college yet) so it would've been farfetched; it was just easier to make them organic; and without organic webshooters the spiderman 2 storyline couldn't have happened. sandman gets ALL his powers from the accident, so it is easier to develop. if he had talked about the making of the web and stuff, knowing fans y'all would've panned the movie saying it took too long for spiderman to appear anyways

[Webhead88]

how is Sandman not realisitic? hes like T-1000 from Terminator 2.

[Bicranial]

how is Sandman not realisitic? hes like T-1000 from Terminator 2.


Which, clearly, you see everyday.

[Chris Wallace]

Sandman isn´t any more absurd than a kid being bitten by a spider and getting superpowers... The thing with the webshooters is simply Peter was just an unprivileged teenager, plus it´d take more time to show him developing the chemical webs, the shooters, etc. If you say it comes from government or a megacorporation it becomes easier to throw in the pseudoscience.
Not to mention how he'd be able to keep replacing the web fluid when he doesn't have any money.
What's funny to me is how so many of the anti-Sandman camp is pro-Venom. So it's MORE realistic to have a guy walking around wearing a space monster for clothes? :spidey:

[Holy spirit]

Its better than having a superhero with no powers dressed as a super hero. Is that real? If that is the case then the super hero movie is not a super hero movie and just a vigilante movie. At least the punisher is what he says he needs no costume. can you think of anyone who is not a super hero but dresses up?

[Chris Wallace]

Uh-gee, BATMAN, maybe?

[Holy spirit]

Who says sandman is not realistic enough there must be angels that we entertain to.

In the spiritual or paranormal world we live in its real enough, as real as the moth man as real as an exorcism as real as a UFO experience. What is real to you is what matters?

[Cosmic]

What...?

[TheSlag]

What...?

LMAO... *exactly* Goes to get butterfly net to "catch em" ;) I think the Holy Spirit is "speaking in tongue" :eek:

[Holy spirit]

Uh-gee, BATMAN, maybe?

Sorry to Batman fans Im not really his supporter,:daredevil but glad there is a film made for people who have a passion for a comic character to see them on screen. Im happy for those fans.

[Holy spirit]

I think the world is not as simple and straight forward as it seems and freaks of nature do happen like the Russian girl with X-ray vision, that is not normal so like sandman we never know some people may not be what they seem. The fantasy world borrows from the real world thats the inspiration of Stan lee.

I know I will get cained for these comments...

[TheSlag]

I think the world is not as simple and straight forward as it seems and freaks of nature do happen like the Russian girl with X-ray vision, that is not normal so like sandman we never know some people may not be what they seem. The fantasy world borrows from the real world thats the inspiration of Stan lee.

While Natasha is an interesting case no doubt, there is a big difference between her "claimed" abilities, and the ability of someone to transform their molecular structure at will. As far as Natsha's abilities go...

An interesting article on the testing of her abilities, where she got 4 of 7 correct. Impressive, but the goal for success was 5 of 7, agreed upon beforehand by all parties. Some points of how she may have "guessed" the correct ones too..

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html


1. The "control" subject, the one who had no internal medical condition, was obviously the youngest of the group. He also looked in good physical condition and appeared much healthier. He was a good candidate for the person with no defects.
2. The subject with the staples in his chest (because of major heart surgery) was male, the oldest of the group and looked the least healthy. He was an obvious choice for the person with the staples in his chest.
3. A breach of protocol occurred on the first trial. Natasha posed a question and her interpreter translated it aloud in front of the subjects. The question, contrary to our protocol, allowed the subjects to know that Natasha was looking for the subject with part of her lung removed. Here it was possible that, knowing which condition Natasha was looking for, the subject with the missing lung might have given herself away through bodily reaction.
4. After the test was over, I learned that Natasha and her companions, because of an apparent misunderstanding, had arrived at the test site before we had expected them. They waited outside the test building where they reportedly observed at least two of the test subjects climb the long flight of stairs and enter the test building. This breach of protocol may have provided them clues about which subjects did or did not have the artificial hip.

..."Natasha and her supporters had the responsibility to show us that she could perform well enough to deserve further scientific investigation. This they failed to do."

[The Lizard]

how is Sandman not realisitic? hes like T-1000 from Terminator 2.

I realize that might be a joke, but it brings up a good point.

The T-1000 was a nanotech liquid robot. Sandman is a living man with a brain, eyeballs, lungs, and a nervous system. These organs turning to "sand" and sifting around before forming back into a man is WAY out there in terms of being against the laws of physics.

As I already said, there are plenty of Spidey comic villains who violate the laws of physics already. Even my beloved Lizard could never transform to Curt Connors and back as quickly as in the comics because in a more "realistic" live-action movie scenario it would look too magical, like a werewolf. Therefore I have always suggested that a movie version of the Lizard would have to have Curt Connors slowly transforming over days or even weeks, like in The Fly with Jeff Goldblum.

The trouble is, while the Lizard and others (including Venom) could be "tweaked" to make their transformations more realistic, Sandman's powers are all based around this bizzare flesh-to-living-sand concept. It's one thing to have one lifeform change shape into another lifeform, but having a lifeform shift into inanimate particles and back again looks more like magic than science. Again, see The Mummy and its sequel.

[neobido9999]

silly as it may sound, the "realistic" way to do sandman is maybe give him "sandable" arms, only

[Holy spirit]

The lizard is not too far off heard of shapeshifting reptiles (Davide Ike) for example and his theories. If you believe in the Bible and see how the world connects to it on umpteen levels which is too much to put in here to explain you can see somethings are not too far fetched. Its up to you or who ever to believe what they want but some people perceive things differently. Some people feel there is a God some do not, we are not all crazy a lot of world pecentage wise believe in a God and things happen let a lone all the evil stuff surounding it. This is where fact and fiction can merge. Man has made cowman before a Chimara type beast but scientists killed them off in created in Labs, it happens all the time. Our future with robotics could make us super human. So what is real to you is how much you believe or know, but everyone has an opinion. Do'nt rule nothing out.:hulk: :wolverine :spidey: :thing: :daredevil :doom:

[Saph]

silly as it may sound, the "realistic" way to do sandman is maybe give him "sandable" arms, onlyI don't see how that would be more realistic, it's still changing living flesh to sand.

[Holy spirit]

Not one super hero can be technically made with our current technology but one day somethings could be made. But do not forget the fun element of the stories no film is real anyway. How do mutants do what they do in X-men? As long as the interaction of the characters have realism let the action take you for a ride because if you keep it real you will have Bridget Jones diary with Peter Parker and no action. you decide how real and how much you want to weigh it out. Since nothing is real its a movie then have fun watch the fireworks the 50 million they spend on special effects, that is what you pay for to watch a movie like spiderman. Do'nt for get to have fun and that is to you to Sam Raimi, fun more action in SM3 not too much smooching...

[TheSlag]

I fear the CGI in SM3 for Sandman. Kinda like I feared the CGI effects for Mr. Fantastic in F4. I "really" fear the BIG OLE CLOBBERIN HAND coming out from Sandy. :eek: :D

And on a side note. Mr. Fantastic was required for a F4 moive. Sandy... ain't... for SM3. Or in more appropriate words... "was not". :(

[Holy spirit]

They might use terms like quantum physics to explain sandman and the vibrational fileds round atoms. I heard church say he is going to be atomic particle based he can manipulate them, he might not be techically sand but use salt from his body to change himself I reckon. What ever happens it will be far fetched so accept it. But I do understand that spiderman 1+2 set the tone of believability it could just about happen. Sandman could be stuck between dimentions where his is unstable but can manipulate him self in our world beyound atomic structures in some dark energy string theory dimention. Hope you are putting this in your scripts SAM RIAMI...

[LarryLegend]

They might use terms like quantum physics to explain sandman and the vibrational fileds round atoms. I heard church say he is going to be atomic particle based he can manipulate them, he might not be techically sand but use salt from his body to change himself I reckon. What ever happens it will be far fetched so accept it. But I do understand that spiderman 1+2 set the tone of believability it could just about happen. Sandman could be stuck between dimentions where his is unstable but can manipulate him self in our world beyound atomic structures in some dark energy string theory dimention. Hope you are putting this in your scripts SAM RIAMI...

The idea of him being stuck between dimensions is not a good one, imho.

Oh and the director of Spider-Man 3 is Sam Rami but I'm sure Sam Riami (whoever he is) is listening to your ideas and will take thim into account.

[blind_fury]

it's not that it's less realistic, but the webshooters would take longer to explain because they would have to devote a little segment to their development, and how he got the resources and all (he wasn't in college yet) so it would've been farfetched; it was just easier to make them organic; and without organic webshooters the spiderman 2 storyline couldn't have happened. sandman gets ALL his powers from the accident, so it is easier to develop. if he had talked about the making of the web and stuff, knowing fans y'all would've panned the movie saying it took too long for spiderman to appear anyways
In "Back to the Future", did they explain how the time machine was built? No.

In "The Fly" did they explain how a scientist built a teleporter all by himself? No.

Did people boycott these movies because they were hard to believe? No.

Webshooters could be explained in minutes. Show a montage of failed web formulas till Parker finally comes up with the perfect web formula. Moments later replace the "go web" scene from Spider-man 1 with a webshooter calibration and testing scene. Eureka! The world is introduced to mechanical webshooters. :spidey:

[LarryLegend]

In "Back to the Future", did they explain how the time machine was built? No.

In "The Fly" did they explain how a scientist built a teleporter all by himself? No.

Did people boycott these movies because they were hard to believe? No.

Webshooters could be explained in minutes. Show a montage of failed web formulas till Parker finally comes up with the perfect web formula. Moments later replace the "go web" scene from Spider-man 1 with a webshooter calibration and testing scene. Eureka! The world is introduced to mechanical webshooters. :spidey:

:up: :up:

[Doctor Goblipus]

As soon as someone where creates a working pair of web shooters, Ill be mad a Raimi. Until then, I could care less.

[Doctor Goblipus]

blind_fury , since you brought up BthF, why dont you fly down here to Louisville, we will jump in my Deloran, flip on the flux copaciter and crank that baby up to 88 sending us back to 2001 where we can change Raimis mind, because that apperas to be the only way youll shut the hell up about webshooters. Its over. You lost.

Get over it.

[blind_fury]

If Spider-man only wore the black costume in the movies wouldn't you make it an issue until Spidey appeared in a movie wearing the classic blue and red? You wouldn't give up so easily, why should I?

[TheSlag]

The idea of him being stuck between dimensions is not a good one, imho.

Oh and the director of Spider-Man 3 is Sam Rami but I'm sure Sam Riami (whoever he is) is listening to your ideas and will take thim into account.

Agreed... and LMAO *ouch* :D

[Saph]

They might use terms like quantum physics to explain sandman and the vibrational fileds round atoms. I heard church say he is going to be atomic particle based he can manipulate them, he might not be techically sand but use salt from his body to change himself I reckon. What ever happens it will be far fetched so accept it. But I do understand that spiderman 1+2 set the tone of believability it could just about happen. Sandman could be stuck between dimentions where his is unstable but can manipulate him self in our world beyound atomic structures in some dark energy string theory dimention. Hope you are putting this in your scripts SAM RIAMI...
I'm sorry, believability? The Spider-Man movies are so much like saturday morning cartoons it's funny. Remember the Goblin's line in SM1: "We'll meet again, Spider-Man!"? Or in SM2, when Aunt May saves herself by latching her walking stick onto a statue on the building? That didn't even happen in the comics during the campy Stan Lee days! The spidey movies are not that believable. It was never explained how a genetically altered Spider gave Peter powers. A genetically altered spider would just be a spider.

This is hardly Batman Begins we're talking about.

[TheSlag]

I'm sorry, believability? The Spider-Man movies are so much like saturday morning cartoons it's funny. Remember the Goblin's line in SM1: "We'll meet again, Spider-Man!"? Or in SM2, when Aunt May saves herself by latching her walking stick onto a statue on the building? That didn't even happen in the comics during the campy Stan Lee days! The spidey movies are not that believable. It was never explained how a genetically altered Spider gave Peter powers. A genetically altered spider would just be a spider.

This is hardly Batman Begins we're talking about.


Yep. :rolleyes: Like a tank driving on a tiled roof without crashing through.

The point was, and is, Spider-Man's first two villains (GG and Ock) were more based in reality than Sandman. As far as a genetically altered spider giving Peter his powers, without that stretch (or heck... radioactive spider if you swing that way :rolleyes: ), we would NOT have Spider-Man.

[Tron5000]

Wow, someone dug this thread from out of nowhere...7 months between posts? Again...Wow.

[Tron5000]

blind_fury , since you brought up BthF, why dont you fly down here to Louisville, we will jump in my Deloran, flip on the flux copaciter and crank that baby up to 88 sending us back to 2001 where we can change Raimis mind, because that apperas to be the only way youll shut the hell up about webshooters. Its over. You lost.

Get over it.

Or you can travel back to 4th grade and learn how to use apostrophes...

[The Lizard]

Yep. :rolleyes: Like a tank driving on a tiled roof without crashing through.


Or a super microwave-emitting device that can vaporize water in a city's water pipes, but doesn't boil everyone around it to death or cause massive damage from all the exploding water heaters. :D

[Gladiator]

Or you can travel back to 4th grade and learn how to use apostrophes...
LMAO:up:

[Holy spirit]

Who cares if you set your standards up as to what should be real or can't happen in reality then forget sci-fi altogether its not for you. Emotionally the films give a sense of reality because you feel what the charcaters are going through. then all of a sudden they become unreality to us and give us a sense of it not being real again. If spiderman or the Superman films had no humour or were directed the way they were then the balance would be uneven, too much reality makes the action false so you have to balance it out. Put someone in a spider cosume on reality TV and you will laugh. But in a movie you sort of take with a pinch of salt.

Bloody hell its like writing an essay for my media teacher.

The webshooters, if parker changed genetically then he could be that much smarter than the next human he was anyway. So he could have researched his web shooters. They have made a real SPIDER-GOAT that produces web rather than milk. Is that real? its is and its F---KED because our reality can be unbelieveable to at times.

[Grayson]

If Spider were to have organic webshooters, why would they come out of his WRISTS?

After all, a spider's webbing actually comes out of it's...
um...
er...
http://www.spiderzrule.com/spiderphotos/garden4_small.jpg

I'm just sayin'...

[Holy spirit]

My theory is that his hands and fingers are spider shaped so the web comes out of the vein side of his hands. His fingers our fingers are like a spider that crawls so the genetic manipulation resulted in his obvious looking part hands.:spidey: We have all pretended our hands are like spiders to scare people when they are young, we pretend that the hand walks be its self on a table surface.

[el brujo138]

My theory is that everybody at Marvel are idiots for letting someone change a vital part of their most popular superhero.

[Holy spirit]

Because Marvel has spent so much time and years making Marvel the nearest hero to reality stories of their characters and changed the outlook of comic book industry forever its a shame they can not be faithful and consistant about it in the films. It was a gamble, ang lee gambled with the Hulk story, Singer with the X-men costumes etc. its all under new times the world has changed and maybe they should stick to what people like rather than what a director or writter thinks they like and make it consumer friendly.

[Holy spirit]

The idea of him being stuck between dimensions is not a good one, imho.

Oh and the director of Spider-Man 3 is Sam Rami but I'm sure Sam Riami (whoever he is) is listening to your ideas and will take thim into account.

I'm just expressing like as a character in my writting when talking about Riami or Rami. Yes I have seen him in real life so I have that mental connection because he could be reading this its a small world. I did shout to Rami Venom or Sandman for spiderman 3 so maybe it sublimally entered his conscience or was a good guess. He must of heard me I was two meters away from him.

What's with the nit picking, stuck between two dimentions not litrally but can change on a quantum level as the deeper you go the more you can manipulate matter maybe go deeper but at least its not unprovable yet. Black holes have been used in Star Trek for years and now they say they are not holes and sigularties do not exist the theory was wrong. So Star Trek is wrong. Don't forget their universes are different in the Marvel world how would X-men fit in?

[ultimatefan]

Man, man, man... I´ve reached a point where I´m more interested in the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt romance than the whole organics debate all over again. Some people will just never get over it, and frankly, my dears, I don´t give a damn...

[Chris Wallace]

Man, man, man... I´ve reached a point where I´m more interested in the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt romance than the whole organics debate all over again. Some people will just never get over it, and frankly, my dears, I don´t give a damn...
True. But obviously there's still a portion of the horse somewhere that has some semblance of life in it, so let them beat away.

[Smegger56]

Like someone said, if Spiderman wasn't wearing his iconic costume in the films and they changed it, we would all be in uproar. The shooters are just as important as the look of spiderman.

[Saph]

Like someone said, if Spiderman wasn't wearing his iconic costume in the films and they changed it, we would all be in uproar. The shooters are just as important as the look of spiderman.I disagree. Stan took a lot more time finding a look for Spider-Man than he did deciding whether Peter used organics are not. He chose Spider-Man's costume because it looked iconic. He chose mechanical webshooters because he thought organics were 'icky'.

[THWIP*]

If Spider were to have organic webshooters, why would they come out of his WRISTS?

After all, a spider's webbing actually comes out of it's...
um...
er...
http://www.spiderzrule.com/spiderphotos/garden4_small.jpg

I'm just sayin'...


SEE......THIS IS WHY IT PISSES ME OFF THAT SOMEONE REVIVED THIS "DEBATE". INVARIABLY, SOME NOOB COMES ALONG AND THINKS THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING NEW AND WITTY TO SAY...........BUT IT'S ALL BEEN SAID BEFORE! :down:rolleyes:

[blind_fury]

I disagree. Stan took a lot more time finding a look for Spider-Man than he did deciding whether Peter used organics are not. He chose Spider-Man's costume because it looked iconic. He chose mechanical webshooters because he thought organics were 'icky'.
Both the classic costume and mechanical webshooters are fundamentally important to Spider-man's character. It would be like taking away Wolverine's adamantium.

And organics ARE "icky". You're taking away Peter Parkers humanity and turning him into just another freak.

[blind_fury]

I disagree. Stan took a lot more time finding a look for Spider-Man than he did deciding whether Peter used organics are not. He chose Spider-Man's costume because it looked iconic. He chose mechanical webshooters because he thought organics were 'icky'.
Both the classic costume and mechanical webshooters are fundamentally important to Spider-man's character. It would be like taking away Wolverine's adamantium.

And organics ARE "icky". You're taking away Peter Parkers humanity and turning him into just another freak.

[Saph]

Both the classic costume and mechanical webshooters are fundamentally important to Spider-man's character. It would be like taking away Wolverine's adamantium.I don't think that's the same thing at all.

And organics ARE "icky". You're taking away Peter Parkers humanity and turning him into just another freak.So all of a sudden your body being sticky enough to crawl on walls isn't icky?

[Jason Martell]

I think organic webshooters are way cooler than mechanical ones. Not to mention it helped the story in part 1. Offered humour, humanization of the character(yeah I know humans don't do that) but it did offer humanization. The incident in the cafeteria, his struggling to shoot it out, his amazement at what's happening to him. To invent something like that requires years of hundred's of scientists with heavy financing. Some smart teenager isn't going to do it in one day.

[The Lizard]

So all of a sudden your body being sticky enough to crawl on walls isn't icky?

It's not gooey stickiness that makes Spidey cling to walls. In the comic, it's some kind of molecular attraction field and in the movies it was the tiny little spikes/hairs on his palms and feet.

The only gooey thing is the webbing that comes out of movie Spidey's wrists, and thank goodness San Raimi decided to downplay the gross-out element of that in the 2002 movie. I shudder to think what James Cameron's "sticky sheets" scene would have been like.

[Kritish]

Webshooters.

[not_a_victim]

Not that I am gonna read all the pages here, but here goes..
Wasnt it stated that it was decided to make the webbing biological, because getting the public to believe that Parker was a scientific genius was considered a stretch the producers didnt want to take?
I kinda agree there. Unless you want to put Parker in a lab for minutes of percious screen time to establish the fact that he is that smart, then just make them biological.
Since the costume was so true to the comic, and the argument makes sense, I am perfectly willing to go that route. Also, if the spider bite gave him other biological changes, then the biological shooters make a little more sense. (BTW, I know that most spiders produce their webbing near their rear end, but this simply would not have translated well in the movie.)

[Kritish]

The idea of a nerdy teenager making something tha any mego corperation would be proud of with nothing but stuff from his house is ridicuous.

[zanos]

Not that I am gonna read all the pages here, but here goes..
Wasnt it stated that it was decided to make the webbing biological, because getting the public to believe that Parker was a scientific genius was considered a stretch the producers didnt want to take?
I kinda agree there. Unless you want to put Parker in a lab for minutes of percious screen time to establish the fact that he is that smart, then just make them biological.
Since the costume was so true to the comic, and the argument makes sense, I am perfectly willing to go that route. Also, if the spider bite gave him other biological changes, then the biological shooters make a little more sense. (BTW, I know that most spiders produce their webbing near their rear end, but this simply would not have translated well in the movie.)


It has nothing to do with what makes more sense. It has to do with being faithful to the source. The fact that Raimi didn't even bother to adapt Peter's webshooters explains why the Spider-man films as a whole are such a bastardization of the classic comics Stan Lee created.

[blind_fury]

But organics doesnt make more sense. It's just lazy storytelling.

Organics is a literal interpretation of Spider-man. "Oh his name is SPIDER-man so he should have spider anatomy!" What is this the fourth grade?

Even though I shouldn't be suprised. Sam Raimi stopped reading Spider-man when he was in the fourth grade, so it's no wonder his understanding of Spider-man is at the fourth grade level.

[not_a_victim]

I have always thought that if PP was smart enough to create webshooters, why didnt he create more weapons? He is supposed to be a genious, but all he gave himself were some weak-ass web shooters? Oh, I guess the trackers and locators, but in this day and time, that technology can be bought at radio shack.

[hulkamania85]

Webshooters because teens are stupid. :)

What really seems unrealistic is that people can still ***** about the webshooters 2 movies later.

[Jason Martell]

It has nothing to do with what makes more sense. It has to do with being faithful to the source. The fact that Raimi didn't even bother to adapt Peter's webshooters explains why the Spider-man films as a whole are such a bastardization of the classic comics Stan Lee created.

The decision of organic webshooter was decided by Stan Lee and Raimi together.

[Jason Martell]

But organics doesnt make more sense. It's just lazy storytelling.

Organics is a literal interpretation of Spider-man. "Oh his name is SPIDER-man so he should have spider anatomy!" What is this the fourth grade?

Even though I shouldn't be suprised. Sam Raimi stopped reading Spider-man when he was in the fourth grade, so it's no wonder his understanding of Spider-man is at the fourth grade level.

You act like these stories are your bible or something. this is way better, and every non comic book fan I met, when I told them how it was in the comic book, they all said all man that's stupid.

[Jason Martell]

I have always thought that if PP was smart enough to create webshooters, why didnt he create more weapons? He is supposed to be a genious, but all he gave himself were some weak-ass web shooters? Oh, I guess the trackers and locators, but in this day and time, that technology can be bought at radio shack.

no *****. If he can make webshooters, he should be able to make a rocket and fly to Alpha Centuari. Or turn himself into the Hulk, or build some kind of mind control device.

[Grayson]

SEE......THIS IS WHY IT PISSES ME OFF THAT SOMEONE REVIVED THIS "DEBATE". INVARIABLY, SOME NOOB COMES ALONG AND THINKS THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING NEW AND WITTY TO SAY...........BUT IT'S ALL BEEN SAID BEFORE! :down:rolleyes:

Oooh... can I play too? And then there always is direputable practice of board veterans who feel obligated to hop onto a "noob" who dares venture into their world.

Usually with an intimidating post... and oh look.. the dreaded "ALL CAPS"!

Friend, if it's 'all been said before'... how many times have you repeated yourself in your 10K+ posts? ;)

heh heh


Dick.

[Chris Wallace]

I was at a family function when the first movie came on on TBS (or one of those). During the scene where Peter's on the rooftp trying to get his webbing to come out, I mentioned how the organic webbing was a major point of controversy among comic fans. This prompted my aunt to ask what he does in the comics, specifically,
"Where do they come from? Out of the suit?"
"He wears a gadget on his wrist which projects a synthetic chemical goop."
"So the webs come out of his suit."
She made it sound real silly.

[Chris Wallace]

And it is an old debate, but let's try & refrain from name-calling.

[Bullseye]

Webshooters are a scientific invention while the Sandman would be hard to explain as being realistic. Comics are based on mythos and fantasy which makes it harder to explain realism. In some cases however, realism works better, for example Batman. Batman has a base of technology and inventions which would seem to be easier to believe, technology is rapidly changing so some things that are impossible become possible.

[Chris Wallace]

But you know what? Batman's gadgets are largely things that Wayne Enterprises was SUPPOSEDLY designing for the military, w/a HUGE budget to work from. Spider-Man (who, mind you, was empowered by the bite of a mutated spider. Once you accept that, the parameters of believability are a little more open to the existence of someone like Sandman) has no money, but supposedly can find the resources to make this adhesive polymer that even NASA can't make. (Note: the last space shuttle was rapidly falling apart) You can't use Batman as an example because it's an entirely different situation. Going by Batman, you can just as easily rule out the existence of Superman or the X-Men.

[Sauron]

Raimi's excuse for not using webshooters was realism. A teenager couldnt create something a major corporation hasnt made (coughnapstercough). Well now he may be using Sandman, one of the least realistic villians in marvel universe. Does that mean we'll see synthetic webbing in Peter Parker's future as well? hmmmm.
It was in the comic book and he was a boy genious, so he should've just left it in, it's a comic doesn't need realism, he said he's such a fan, I know if I was such a big fan of a comic book and made a movie about it I'd keep all of the main things in, and bring it all to life 'cause that's what is a part of that character.



I hate that whole thing of, okay this is this what can be changed about it, you don't have to change it, just let it be and let the legend come to life. It's established in the movie he's smart I would've believed it, I believed it in the comic book, and after all this is about a comic book, not real life.

And what the hell's so realistic about a guy who can shoot webbing out of his wrist? Either way it's done.

[Saph]

The only reason why I like the Organic Webshooters is because I think it sort of makes Spidey more of a SPIDER-Man. It just doesn't make sense to me that a person with spider powers doesn't get the power to make webbing, one of the defining features of a spider. I remember after I saw the movie, and started getting interested in Spider-Man. When I saw that he used mechanical webshooters, I thought "how stupid"

[jaydawg]

Oh god, this thread just gave me flashbacks to Mr.Parker and Bakerboy's Man-Spider threads.

[Saph]

Oh god, this thread just gave me flashbacks to Mr.Parker and Bakerboy's Man-Spider threads.Mr. Parker and bakerboy were trolls. So basically you're saying everyone in this thread is a troll.

And since you've posted in here, you have now become a troll.

[THWIP*]

Oooh... can I play too? And then there always is direputable practice of board veterans who feel obligated to hop onto a "noob" who dares venture into their world.

Usually with an intimidating post... and oh look.. the dreaded "ALL CAPS"!

Friend, if it's 'all been said before'... how many times have you repeated yourself in your 10K+ posts? ;)

heh heh


Dick.


CONGRATS, DUMBASS......YOU NOW HAVE 2 POSTS, AND BOTH OF THEM ARE POINTLESS. :down
AND DON'T INSULT ME BY USING THE WORD "FRIEND".....ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO CALL ME A DlCK IN "BIG LETTERS". :rolleyes:

[blind_fury]

The only reason why I like the Organic Webshooters is because I think it sort of makes Spidey more of a SPIDER-Man. It just doesn't make sense to me that a person with spider powers doesn't get the power to make webbing, one of the defining features of a spider. I remember after I saw the movie, and started getting interested in Spider-Man. When I saw that he used mechanical webshooters, I thought "how stupid"
The problem is Spider-man is not just some simplistic mixture of human and spider, he's more complex than that. :spidey:

[blind_fury]

But you know what? Batman's gadgets are largely things that Wayne Enterprises was SUPPOSEDLY designing for the military, w/a HUGE budget to work from. Spider-Man (who, mind you, was empowered by the bite of a mutated spider. Once you accept that, the parameters of believability are a little more open to the existence of someone like Sandman) has no money, but supposedly can find the resources to make this adhesive polymer that even NASA can't make. (Note: the last space shuttle was rapidly falling apart) You can't use Batman as an example because it's an entirely different situation. Going by Batman, you can just as easily rule out the existence of Superman or the X-Men.
A human getting superpowers from a spider-bite is far more realistic than a man of flesh and blood transforming back and forth into sand. And a teenage prodigy engineering synthetic webbing is far more realistic than a human getting powers from a spider bite. The simple truth is audiences would have no problem accepting Peter Parker making web formula. It would just force audiences to see Spider-man differently. He's no longer a freak-of-the-week. He's a complex teen superhero who contributed to his crimefighting abilities and superpowers because he was destined to be Spider-man. He's an intelligent superhero who can change his web formula or calibrate his webshooters when necessary. Not just some nerd with dumb luck.

[Smegger56]

The idea of a nerdy teenager making something tha any mego corperation would be proud of with nothing but stuff from his house is ridicuous.

In that case, Stan Lee and the Spiderman comics of 43 years must be rediculous!

Are you a spidey fan?

---------------------------------------------------

You know, i have an idea on how webshooters could've been used in a spidey film.

Here it goes.

Spiderman is bit by the 'genetically altered' spider, and he develops his powers and all that. However, while we see the gland marks on his wrists, he can't use them. They're, let's say, dorment. He can produce webbing, but he needs help. So, he comes up with a device that goes round his wrists, with special padding that goes ontop of the gland marks, with the pressure sensitive button on the palm of his hand (he has one for each wrist and hand obvioulsy). Now, instead of web cartridges, he uses a cartridge with a special chemical inside that when he presses the pressure button, the chemical in the cartirdge releases in to the gland, and spouts the web line for him. there we go... a new form of webshooters.

Now, surely that will appease the Organic lovers here, and be just as 'believable' sandman.

I'd still prefer the actual webshotters, but that would have been a MUCH better compromise (though i'd have prefferred no compromise).

[Chris Wallace]

1-too late.
2-that's more or less what we were led to believe was gonna happen 4 years ago.

[Asteroid-Man]

But still, the whole spidey story is unrealistic

[Tony Stark]

Sandman is no more or less realistic than Mr. Fantastic.

As far as the webshooters, there's no more dead horse left to beat.

[Asteroid-Man]

"As far as the webshooters, there's no more dead horse left to beat.
Tony Stark is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote" huh?

[Saph]

The problem is Spider-man is not just some simplistic mixture of human and spider, he's more complex than that. :spidey:How is he not? He was bitten by a radioactive spider, and gained spider powers. Hmm, I guess he isn't half-man half-spider. :rolleyes

You better not be referring to JMS's run..

[blind_fury]

How is he not? He was bitten by a radioactive spider, and gained spider powers. Hmm, I guess he isn't half-man half-spider. :rolleyes

You better not be referring to JMS's run..
Spider-man is more of a meta-human with spider-like abilities than a half-man/half-spider.

1) Spider-man has no spider physiology.

2) Spider-man doesnt climb walls like a spider. He uses electromagnetic energy or some ambiguous force to stick to walls.

3) Spider-man's spider sense doesnt work like a spiders. A spider uses sensitive hairs to predict danger. Spider-man uses borderline ESP. An exclusively mental ability.

4) Spider-man's webbing is not biological. It's a synthetic compound which proves Spider-man is an intelligent/human crimefighter.

You see Spider-man is not you're basic human-animal mix. He gained the metaphysical abilities of a spider without the hairy spider body parts or the nasty spider physiology.

No one would want spider physiology but most people would like to have spider abilities. Therein lies the genius of STAN LEE'S Spider-man! :spidey:

[Asteroid-Man]

and that is realistic?

[spider-jide]

I thought he didnt use mechanical webshooters because he thought it would be too difficult to explain how they work to the general public :confused:

There's nothing really to explain in regards to the mechanics of a web shooter. Audiences know spidey fires out webbing and I dont think they particularly care about its intricate workings. If Raimi had done his job and characterised Peter/spidey properly, problems like these wouldn't occur. An emphasis on the genius mnd of Peter will have audiences believe Peter is capable of creating eb shooters, after all, its fundimentally been that way since 1962, so why should audiences really care about how the mechs work? Raimi is a real idiot for carelessly dropping the ball with this one.

[blind_fury]

and that is realistic?
more realistic than flesh transforming back and forth into sand.

[Tony Stark]

"As far as the webshooters, there's no more dead horse left to beat.
Tony Stark is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote" huh?

Unless you've been hiding under a rock for the last 5 years, my post was pretty clear.

[Tony Stark]

There's nothing really to explain in regards to the mechanics of a web shooter. Audiences know spidey fires out webbing and I dont think they particularly care about its intricate workings. If Raimi had done his job and characterised Peter/spidey properly, problems like these wouldn't occur. An emphasis on the genius mnd of Peter will have audiences believe Peter is capable of creating eb shooters, after all, its fundimentally been that way since 1962, so why should audiences really care about how the mechs work? Raimi is a real idiot for carelessly dropping the ball with this one.

The comics also explained that Peter stuck to walls via Ionic bonding. Obviously comic writers never took Physics or Chemistry in their lives.

So what's more realistic, ionically bonding your fingers to a wall or having claw like hairs coming out of your fingers just like a spider?

[blind_fury]

I know which one is more gross and disgusting. Hairy hands for sure.

I prefer no explanation of Spidey's wall crawling than one that reduces him into some hairy palmed freak.

Again. No one would want spider physiology but most people would like to have spider abilities. Therein lies the genius of STAN LEE'S Spider-man! All the spider powers without the gross spider anatomy.

[Tony Stark]

Oh please, get over yourself. He has retractable claws, a simple explanation that is biologically correct, and was used in Spider-Man 2099 (along with organic webshooters).

Seriously some of you fanboys need to take off the underoos and grow up.

[Smegger56]

Oh please, get over yourself. He has retractable claws, a simple explanation that is biologically correct, and was used in Spider-Man 2099 (along with organic webshooters).

Seriously some of you fanboys need to take off the underoos and grow up.


Spiderman 2099 is not THE Spiderman. I feel that if you disagree with the original Spiderman, then you disagree with the genius of Stan Lee... but thats just me :)

[Asteroid-Man]

lol to Blind furry

[gdw]

They are both rather un-realistic, that's why it's a fantasy, sur-realistic.

The realism with the web shooters was that it was something that would HAVE to be presented as being real, not really a fantasy element too it. Raimi felt that they could not realistically portray a kid coming up with a liquide substance that instantly dries into a super strong strand and compact it into something around his wrist.

It is something that WOULD be a little hard to get past an audience. Seeing as how he concluded that the oranic shooters simply would work better in this medium, well . . .

Where as the rest of the elements are ment to be based on a suspension of disbelief. A man made of sand, a boy being bitten by a spider giving him super powers, a man bonding with an alien as a suit that can make him look like anything/one he wants? ALL VERY un-realistic. Hence, again, a fantasy.

Now I personally think that the web shooters could have been done and be accepted with the audience and suspension of disbelief. Obviously so could the organic ones as they did go over with the public just fine.

I would have loved to have seen them in the movie though, also it would have added more of PP using his knowledge in his creation of and becoming Spier-man.

But I highly doubt it would have been too believable for him to just, after suddenly being bitten and discovering his wall crawling abilities, etc, think hmm, now I need to make some webs (well he likely would think nthis, but) making them in a short period of time would be very illogical.

For him to suddenly make webshooters out of nothing, when there is nothing even remotly similar? Do you know how long it would take and how much r&d would have to go into something like that?
Only way for it too otherwise come around would have been by accidental discovery.

Now if he had been woring on something and discovered the fuid in advance, before the bit, and not just in a short period of time because he suddenly had a need for them, well that certainly would have worked.

So yes they could have been done, but they also play well without. The world has accepted it, with quite the show of it concidering they have made the two movies two of the top grossing films.

[Asteroid-Man]

The whole damn Marvel Universe is unreal. Cool but unreal.

[Smegger56]

What Marvel does is put fantastic characters in the real world, and gives them problems... especially Spiderman.

Now, if you take a character like Spiderman, who is very unreal, and put him on the big screen, then why couldn't they put the unrealistic thing like the webshooters in. I mean, if they expect the general audience to accept a man with powers of a spider, surely they can accept webshooters created by a teenager.

[Asteroid-Man]

I admit that was a mistake but dont say sandman is unrealistic compared to spiderman. They are both unreal period.

[blind_fury]

But I highly doubt it would have been too believable for him to just, after suddenly being bitten and discovering his wall crawling abilities, etc, think hmm, now I need to make some webs (well he likely would think nthis, but) making them in a short period of time would be very illogical.

For him to suddenly make webshooters out of nothing, when there is nothing even remotly similar? Do you know how long it would take and how much r&d would have to go into something like that?
Only way for it too otherwise come around would have been by accidental discovery.

Now if he had been woring on something and discovered the fuid in advance, before the bit, and not just in a short period of time because he suddenly had a need for them, well that certainly would have worked.

A good compromise without resorting to organics would be:

1) Suggesting Parker recieved the knowledge of how to make web formula via the spider-bite.

OR

2) Having Parker find his fathers incomplete adhesive formula and completing it to make web formula.

Both of these embellish Spider-man's origin without turning the character into a freak.

[Danalys]

it's the mechanical side that's the problem not the formula.

[Asteroid-Man]

true

[ElectroFlare]

Also, when does he get the chemicals from? He has to keep dishing out the money for mech webshooters. They can't be cheap, and in the movie continuty, Pete is exactly Donald Trump.