The mask needs to be animated in SM4!!

[SLYspyder]

If the mask is animated, Raimi won't have to be coming up with silly reasons to have Peter remove it.
It works great in the comics and cartoon and I believe it can work great in the movies as well and not look silly.

Look at this brilliant picture. Just a small example of how good Spider-Man 4 can look on the big screen.

http://api.ning.com/files/bp-Bbi12W1gGhxxStrlilr8B3RA54HAofsKyQn5I8GRTxiIzSoMs4 RDKcIXy97QA/SpidermanVsGreenGoblin.jpg

[Crook]

...

[Crook]

Del'otto? Great piece.

And yes, it works great in the comics and animation, but it really would just look stupid in live-action. I'm not sure it would even look right.

I'd rather they just redesign the mask.

[CaptainStacy]

Going by that logic, i guess Iron Man's face helmet should be animated as well?

I think Spidey's mask in the movies is fine just as it is. Gives it an air of reality in an otherwise fantasy based film, imo...

[Octoberist]

This is the silliest post that I've ever read, if SLYspyder (http://forums.superherohype.com/member.php?u=29874) is serious. I mean, how can a person want this and be legit about it? Only crazy people, that's all.

[©KAW]

...or just get a much better director who understands the ramifications of Spider-Man and his cast of characters. :cool:

[Octoberist]

just a silly thread indeed

[Rodrigo90]

Im speechless

[Octoberist]

The reason why I give this thread a hard time is because the 'facial expession' thing is an element that probably only work in the comics. That's the magic of art: you can get away with things that you can't in real life, like show muscles in spandex or make night look 'blue'.

But it won't work in a movie because it would look bizarre. I think maybe..just maybe it can be kinda slight, but not to the point where you can see his mask winking at you. Maybe if it's a Pixar or an animated film but not live action.

[HughJackFan420]

Wtf 4

[A&W]

I read years ago back when the first spider-man came out that they experimented with that and it looked horribly creepy and weird. One of the people involved in the effects replied during the interview "It's weird his head is changing."

[Deaths Head II]

Just imagining it creeps me out.

I wish they could get around the fact Toby can't act through the mask but this isn't the way.

[The Slang]

I read years ago back when the first spider-man came out that they experimented with that and it looked horribly creepy and weird. One of the people involved in the effects replied during the interview "It's weird his head is changing."

I'd love to see that footage. C'mon now everyone, this isn't that bad an idea... people can be so close minded. No body cares about Rorshak's mask making impossible changes during the movie do they? No body cares that batman clearly has black eyeshadow on everytime he wears his mask. Maybe the Spidey movies SHOULD stylize the visuals slightly, even at the expense of realism.

I've seen masks with inbuilt goggles that really 'hug' the eye socket and show signs of the eye squinting or widening. You can get the same effect with a tissue and a teaspoon. Place the tissue over your eye, then press the teaspoon against the tissue and cup it over your eyeball. Look in the mirror and move your eyebrows. The tissue (acting as the eye frames) contracts around the spoon (acting as the lense) allowing you to show changes in expression.

Personally I'd like to see a mask made in this fashion, maybe with some minor cgi work to emphasize the effect.

[Spider-Fan83]

I am not even sure, I fully understand what is being suggested....

but, from what I gather, I still don't think it’ll stop them from removing the mask, it's not about the masks lack of expression, it's about giving Tobey more face time

[Ace of Knaves]

Ehhh I don't think it is necessary for Spidey to be honest. Facial expressions through his mask ain't that important to him. For someone like Deadpool I could understand them doing it, in fact I want them to do it for his film, because it is a big part of his character.

But for Spidey? Naa. Anyway we'll be lucky if we get a fourth film at this rate.

[SLYspyder]

Whoa.....tough crowd......except for Slang, who appears to actually have an imagination.

[nameless_hero]

I completely undestand why you suggested it. The eyes have always been a huge part of Spidey expression, but at the same time it would be difficult to translate into reality.
They did do something along these lines in SM1 at the final battle with the pumpkin bomb in Pete's face; We saw an under the mask facial expression. I think that would be the only way to pull it off, by giving an insight into what Pete's face looks like under the mask at critical spider sense moments. Sort of a Tony in the iron man helmet feel.

[Colossal Spoons]

I'd like to disagree. Though, that is a great piece by Dell'Otto.

[rcazzy]

I like The Slang's idea. Could work. nameless hero made a good point with the under the mask expression too. Either would be fine. But one thing they should fix is his mouth moving. One thing I hate is when Spidey is shouting at the top of his lungs yet the mask doesn't move at all. Takes me right out.

[Spider-Fan83]

what about something like, retractable lenses (like GG had in the first movie) so, we can still see his eyes during certain scenes without him completely removing his mask

or you could even take that a step farther, and give him a retractable mask (something like Harry had in 3) or even just have like the lower half of it, retract

[Eggyman]

Why waist production time on something they hardly use?

[©KAW]

There's no need for animating the mask, it's an ass of an idea. I think most people are MASKing the real problem, that the film makers doesn't understand the basic concept of why the hero wears a mask. Sam Raimi would much rather direct a "Peter Parker" film.

[©KAW]

D/p

[NinjaTurtleFan]

This is Spider-Man we're talking about not Rorschach.

[Beanjuice]

Going by that logic, i guess Iron Man's face helmet should be animated as well?



:huh:

When in the hell has Iron Man's helmet ever squinted its eyes or frowned? Never, because its a piece of metal. While i agree that the mask doesnt need to be animated i just thought that comment was :doh: sorry.

[night0205]

Whoa.....tough crowd......except for Slang, who appears to actually have an imagination.

It would probably be good not to insult the people you are suggesting your idea to. I don't see why they would implement this, it wouldn't work with what they have established with Spider-man.

[SLYspyder]

I completely undestand why you suggested it. The eyes have always been a huge part of Spidey expression, but at the same time it would be difficult to translate into reality.
They did do something along these lines in SM1 at the final battle with the pumpkin bomb in Pete's face; We saw an under the mask facial expression. I think that would be the only way to pull it off, by giving an insight into what Pete's face looks like under the mask at critical spider sense moments. Sort of a Tony in the iron man helmet feel.

Very nice idea, btw.

[Adrian89]

The mask should not be animated, WTF?!? It should stay as it is, the only thing it should do is remain on Peter's face!

[Ace of Knaves]

Exactly. There is more things to worry about. Like oh I dunno, the fact that in 3 movies, in 7 hours of film, Spider-Man has been in the mask for about 45 minutes. Pathetic.

[Eggyman]

Exactly. There is more things to worry about. Like oh I dunno, the fact that in 3 movies, in 7 hours of film, Spider-Man has been in the mask for about 45 minutes. Pathetic.

Think about it though... if he wore his mask all the time, we wouldn't be able to see him cry. :doh:

[Raith]

I think it would look weird. Masks just don't do that in real life. In a still on a page, you can get away with it, but in full motion it just looks like the mask has become skin. You'd just have to make a test animation and show it to a group of people to see what they think. I get the feeling thay already tried that and the response wasn't good enough to make it part of the movie.

[Golgo-13]

Animatd..nah. I would be content if for once yet another villain didn't see Spidey un-masked in Spider-man 4. I mean think about it; EVERY villain since Spider-Man 1 has seen him without his mask...every single one! That's just ridiculous! :cmad:

[A&W]

I'd love to see that footage. C'mon now everyone, this isn't that bad an idea... people can be so close minded. No body cares about Rorshak's mask making impossible changes during the movie do they? No body cares that batman clearly has black eyeshadow on everytime he wears his mask. Maybe the Spidey movies SHOULD stylize the visuals slightly, even at the expense of realism.
.
That is different with Rorshak. I'm pretty sure there was a supernatural element to it and I just can't remember what it was. And everything about Watchment was kind of farfetched. It's impossible for humans without superpowers to move like that.

With Batman it's somewhat acceptable because he is a person wearing a costume so it is concerivable that he could put make up on and it doesn't stand out so much that you concentrate on it. It's not impossible. Batman goes to great lengths to have an imtimidating presence and look. a small handy sprayer and closing his eyes and he could put black eyeshadow on in seconds. He doesn't have to be careful about not getting it everywhere because he's putting the mask on anyways.

Spider-man's mask and the shape of his eyes pop right out at you. It would be extremely noticeable. And his mask can't change shape like that. It's impossible which is why it would look weird and fake. If Venom or Carnage were to do that it would be different. Compare it to if they were to change the size and shape of his muscles on screen. That would also look weird and fake. When they do that in the comics it is simmiliar to how they often exagerate features and proportions. It happens often with comics and cartoons. You an't get away with that in live action. Only in an animated movie.

It really is a horrible idea.

[NinjaCarm]

Just portray Spider-Man accurately in most scenes he's in, I understand he can't be quipping at serious dramatic portions of the film, but for 40 years of history sake, portray our hero right and you won't need an animated mask.

[NinjaCarm]

Just portray Spider-Man accurately in most scenes he's in, I understand he can't be quipping at serious dramatic portions of the film, but for 40 years of history sake, portray our hero right and you won't need an animated mask.

[The Slang]

With Batman it's somewhat acceptable because he is a person wearing a costume so it is concerivable that he could put make up on and it doesn't stand out so much that you concentrate on it. It's not impossible. Batman goes to great lengths to have an imtimidating presence and look. a small handy sprayer and closing his eyes and he could put black eyeshadow on in seconds. He doesn't have to be careful about not getting it everywhere because he's putting the mask on anyways.

Are you suggesting that in the dark knight, Part of the actual story told to the audience, is that Bruce Wayne puts on make up before his mask and then removes the make up everytime he takes off his mask?

I don't think so man... just like in burtons films, the movie was MEANT to suggest that batman WAS NOT wearing make up. The make up was MEANT to be percieved by the audience as a light effect, even though any idiot can tell his eyes are just as painted as the joker's. But the creators realized that we -the audience- would overlook this, for the simple fact that it LOOKS COOLER than it would without.

If spider-man takes a sarcastic tone, and one of his eyes appears slightly larger or more 'open' than the other... people won't mind aslong as it LOOKS COOL.

[Crook]

Fella, there is a considerable difference between disbelief in black eye make-up as being a separate entity of a black mask....and eyes that literally move on a cloth-like material. That is a very extreme reach you've made.

[The Slang]

If you wrap cloth around someones head -assuming that cloth doesn't have a half an inch thick protruding web pattern and solid removeable eye frames- you will notice movement in the cheeks and forehead with the right lighting conditions.

It would probably be too dramatic a change if the next movie is going to have Raimi, Tobey and the crew returning. They may aswell stick with the style they've chosen for the remainer of this series. But I'm certain that moving eyes on a spider-man mask could have and may still work. Somewhat like the spawn mask.

The lense in the centre would remain stationary and keep its shape (pressed very close to the eye, so as to lodge them under the eyebrows), while the frames around the lenses hug the eyebrows and cheeks. The frames can tighten with the face to conceal and shrink the amount of the lense (white part) that remains visible.

[night0205]

...

[night0205]

lol

[Crook]

If you wrap cloth around someones head -assuming that cloth doesn't have a half an inch thick protruding web pattern and solid removeable eye frames- you will notice movement in the cheeks and forehead with the right lighting conditions.

It would probably be too dramatic a change if the next movie is going to have Raimi, Tobey and the crew returning. They may aswell stick with the style they've chosen for the remainer of this series. But I'm certain that moving eyes on a spider-man mask could have and may still work. Somewhat like the spawn mask.

The lense in the centre would remain stationary and keep its shape (pressed very close to the eye, so as to lodge them under the eyebrows), while the frames around the lenses hug the eyebrows and cheeks. The frames can tighten with the face to conceal and shrink the amount of the lense (white part) that remains visible.
Such movements are miniscule, even on the thinnest material available (which on a big tentpole film, wouldn't even be considered). Even if we're going to take a big leap in the production choosing that method, you're not going to be seeing a variety of emotions from that mask without help of CGI. At that point you're straddling cartoony silliness.

[A&W]

If you wrap cloth around someones head -assuming that cloth doesn't have a half an inch thick protruding web pattern and solid removeable eye frames- you will notice movement in the cheeks and forehead with the right lighting conditions.

.
Spider-Man does have a half a web pattern and solid removeable frames. this is the equivalent of if your glasses were to do this.

your spawn example is horrible because spawn's costume is supernatural.

[The Slang]

Spider-Man does have a half a web pattern and solid removeable frames. this is the equivalent of if your glasses were to do this.

your spawn example is horrible because spawn's costume is supernatural.

Sigh, the guy who thinks bruce wayne carries a spray on eyeshadow dispenser completely misinterprets something new...

I'm aware that the spider-man in Raimis movies has solid removeable eye frames and a thick protruding web pattern, that's why I mentioned it. In the comics the mask always seemed flatter. I think you and I are envisioning two different things... this would be the equivalent of someone's eyebrows and cheeks tightening around their glasses. Last time i looked in the mirror it didn't seem too impossible.

My spawn example was only meant to describe the degree of movement I envision. There's a particular scene where spawn is holding something in his hand and looking towards the camera while the violater appears behind him. I think it was done with cgi, but his eyes just squint slightly.

[The Slang]

Such movements are miniscule, even on the thinnest material available (which on a big tentpole film, wouldn't even be considered). Even if we're going to take a big leap in the production choosing that method, you're not going to be seeing a variety of emotions from that mask without help of CGI. At that point you're straddling cartoony silliness.

Miniscule is all I'd want to see. There doesn't need to be a huge range of emotions.
Only 3 actually:
When he gets serious, (thinking deeply, spots a villain) the eyes squint slightly.
When he's surprised/shocked, you reverse the squinting and show the eyes widening to their origional shape.
When he takes on a cocky or sarcastic tone (I guess you haven't heard, I'm the sherrif in these parts) you have only one eye squint, to create the effect that he's raised an eyebrow.
I always thought of this as a huge component to spider-mans appearance. It's strange that the things I liked most about spider-man as a kid (that he moves like a demon, and has eyes like a bug) are the things they've decided to downplay.

[©KAW]

Such movements are miniscule, even on the thinnest material available (which on a big tentpole film, wouldn't even be considered). Even if we're going to take a big leap in the production choosing that method, you're not going to be seeing a variety of emotions from that mask without help of CGI. At that point you're straddling cartoony silliness.I agree. Let's face it, with Raimi, we're already straddling too much unnecessary silliness in these films as they are, unfortunately. :dry:

[Vile]

Forget animated....can we just have him keep the mask ON?!

[Reikowolf]

I noticed a big change between spider-man 1 and 2.

In the first movie, one of the problems that really irked me, as well as others, was that they recorded Tobey's lines on location; the practicalities of which resulted in a somewhat muffled sound when he spoke as the mask served as a filter. The mask also seemed a lot more 'solid' (for lack of a better word) and the movement of Tobey's jaw could not be seen as he spoke, giving spider-man a mute expression.

The second movie corrected this by dubbing Tobey's line, Spider-man's voice was now crisp and clear, there were also a few instances where we saw movement in spider-man's mask, implying speech.

These changes, although helpful, have yet to deter Raimi from removing Spider-Man's mask all together for the third act of each film. In his defense, I get it. You paid an actor for his talent, his face should be shown to create the illusion that it's Tobey behind the mask and not always a stuntman. I think in the first spider-man is was done with good reason and the mask stayed on for a fair portion of the time, although tattered, after the goblin bomb. The second and third movie make weaker attempts at justifying this.

As for his eyes, I know the comic takes liberties in actually showing the change of expressions through the mask, I'm not entirely sure this would translate well into the film version. That being said, it would not be entirely difficult to write in.

"Look MJ, I've found that my lenses create a glare when it's bright out but I can't have them tinted or I won't be able to see at night. I've created an iris mechanism that would adjust my lenses for day and night using a blah blah blah light sensor."

I mean, how does the flux capacitor actually work? 88mph explains nothing :P

There is a problem with them constantly unmasking Spider-Man. Perhaps animating the mask might help keep this from happening.

[Spidey Snooch]

I think that there should be more articulation in the mouth and chin, but there's no way to do it with the eyes and not make it seem completely weird. They MAYBE could have gotten away with it in 3 because of the symbiote, but that chance is gone forever. I always thought the "emoting eyes" looked silly in the comics, too. Especially when Ramos does it. What they need to do is coach Tobey on voice inflection and acting through body language.

[HerosOnFilm]

In concepts for the first film, they considered a transparent "spidey" helmet, to give his head the oval shape from the comics. All in all, I think they came to their senses and realized he would look like a power-ranger, and being able to somewhat see the face underneath is just plain stupid.

If I'm correct, the reason you don't see any movement of the mask when he talks is a special piece in the mask that preserves the shape of the mask regardless if Maguire or a stunt double was wearing it. Thus you don't see different jawlines since the mask is form-fitting. The bad part is, you don't get the "movement" when speaking, but to me, this is a minor issue. The major issue as many pointed out is his mask always being off in the films.

[Ace of Knaves]

BTW guys... there is no fourth film. It's official. Reboot.

[gdw]

I think the mask should be able to MOVE, but not be animated, like the eyes often are seen to be.

It always buged me that his chin did not appear to move when he talked in the recent films. This was due to the face plate they used.

[Jordacar]

Okay, it's clear that the filmmaker's hate Spidey's mask, as they keep installing lame excuses for him to remove it (this is especially evident in SM2 and 3). They feel that he must take off the mask so that Tobey can act, or at least to remind us that it's him under there.

But there is another solution to that problem: more one-liners and banter from Spidey. If they want to give Spidey personality and remind us who's wearing the mask without removing it, give him lots to say in the midst of the action.

And don't tell me that it would be impractical for Spidey to make light during the action. Watch any episode of Spectacular, it can be done.

[AnorexicBatman]

Hugo Weaving Says: To emote while wearing a static mask is true acting

In essence, get a good actor.