Spider-Man Reboot Costume, OMG The Shoes Are SILVER! - Part 3

[I'm Old Greg]

http://cdn.superherohype.com/images/stories/spideyonlocation3.jpg



the eyes don't look yellow i think there more clear to see the actors/peters eyes through the spider man mask, notice that? its peach you can see his eyes are closed and his eyebrows..maybe the director wanted to see his eyes

remember Rami said a lot about that having a problem concealing the eyes.

[Ajendo]

:dry: You don't know what the "sacred" comics are...do you.

The "sacred" comics are the sixties. When Stan Lee was writing.

I used the word sacred and put them in " " for a reason. I was being hyperbolic.

Thats what everyone wants this movie to mimic, not the new ones. So...

Name one person here who wants this movie to be exactly like the 60s comics. You have one idiot running around saying aunt May needs to be in her late 30s to mid 40s, another clown wanting Norman to transform into a giant angry jelly baby and you have a whole bunch of people that do NOT want spidey to quip as frequently as he does in the comics. So...

[Ajendo]

he never said wrong, he said "lax". and they are.

Thank you.

[Arach Knight]

Has anyone considered that the silver portions on the boots may in fact be equipment for the stunts that will be digitally removed, much like stunt wires?

http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000HVUYhtmiF1k/s/600/600/Spidey-TruckStunt-OLN9.jpg

" Spider-Man was assisted by Velcro and a wire to stick to and climb up the side of the tractor trailer"

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Well, if you brighten up the official image on the movie site, you can see the silver on the shoes.

[craigdbfan]

Has anyone considered that the silver portions on the boots may in fact be equipment for the stunts that will be digitally removed, much like stunt wires? as assisted by Velcro and a wire to stick to and climb up the side of the tractor trailer"

The velcro is the black lining on the shoes.

The silver design on the shoe is here to stay unfortunately.

^^ Well, if you brighten up the official image on the movie site, you can see the silver on the shoes.

Exactly.

In the latest promo pic Sony does a smart job of concealing the two most controversial areas and that is his tummy region to cover the lack of belt design and for the new SpiderAsics shoes he's got on.

[Goran]

In the latest promo pic Sony does a smart job of concealing the two most controversial areas and that is his tummy region to cover the lack of belt design and for the new SpiderAsics shoes he's got on.

Don't forget the stripes! They're hidden too!

[socool]

.Name one person here who wants this movie to be exactly like the 60s comics. You have one idiot running around saying aunt May needs to be in her late 30s to mid 40s, another clown wanting Norman to transform into a giant angry jelly baby and you have a whole bunch of people that do NOT want spidey to quip as frequently as he does in the comics. So...

I was being hyperbolic too :awesome:

[Spider-ManHero12]

Don't forget the stripes! They're hidden too! Yeah, very true.

[Mace Bloodstone]

spider-goblin


http://i53.tinypic.com/vynz82.jpg

:hehe:

[rowleyslims]

"^^ Well, if you brighten up the official image on the movie site, you can see the silver on the shoes."

Not to belittle your post of anything but just because they are "there if yo lighten the image" doesnt mean anything. The normal everyday fan isnt going to take the time to lighten posters. ie. They would never even know if the silver was there or not. Maybe darkening the image was "post prodution" in a matter of speaking.:cwink:

ps. Not saying this is how it is. not saying the silver isnt part of the suit. Just pointing out the fact that your reasoning doesnt justify 100% that they are part of the suit. Just sayin. :awesome:

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ It's an official image. Why would they release a picture of an unfinished suit?

[roach]

Denial...its just not a river in Egypt

[Ajendo]

^^ It's an official image. Why would they release a picture of an unfinished suit?

To give you an idea as to what you can expect. The trailer for the 1st spidey movie had an entire sequence with spidey flipping and landing on the burglar's car in full spidey costume yet in the actual movie the exact same scene occured except they had him do it in his wrestling garb. Believe it or not these things do happen.

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ True, but we've seen the silver on his shoes in every picture so far. I think the reason that they altered SPider-Msn look in the first film's trailer when he's catching the burglar is just so that they didn't want to spoil the scene.

[NinjaCarm]

Started to watch TSSM cartoon season 2, I have to say most of the time I watch that show I'm in such awe at the consideration and thought that went into it to make it the greatest Spider-Man cartoon.

Yeah it's for kids but sometimes I'm surprised on how they don't hold back! Just a great show, the way they do the villains, the interpretation of Peter Parker and Spider-Man, well just Spectacular! Ha!

All Sony has to do with this reboot franchise is benchmark that show and both the cash and acclaim will flood in.

[White_Knight191]

^^ Agreed and it seems they took the Lizard fight scene that took place at the zoo from TSSM for the reboot, remember that set pic with the zoo sign ? (If Lizard is indeed the villain.)

TSSM didn't even air here in Belgium but I still watched it online. :p Loved the show.

[NinjaCarm]

^^ Agreed and it seems they took the Lizard fight scene that took place at the zoo from TSSM for the reboot, remember that set pic with the zoo sign ? (If Lizard is indeed the villain.)

TSSM didn't even air here in Belgium but I still watched it online. :p Loved the show.

Nice, yeah the Zoo fight perhaps! I never watched Season 2 on tv I just got the DVDs now it's a nice treat to watch.

But yeah, the way Osborn helps create some villains, the mob angle, everything, really good. Can easily be this way in the new films.

[Travesty]

Has anyone considered that the silver portions on the boots may in fact be equipment for the stunts that will be digitally removed, much like stunt wires?

What would be the pint in that? Why would they make them silver, just to have more work afterwords? Why not just make them all red, and be done with it?

[Arach Knight]

What would be the pint in that? Why would they make them silver, just to have more work afterwords? Why not just make them all red, and be done with it?

I don't know. Why are stunt wires silver? I am proffering a possibility, not a definitive claim. I have already viewed all of the pictures that are available from On Location News. They are all stunt scenes. It seems plausible that the silver shoes (which many in this post have noted, bear a striking resemblance to Asci running shoes) may in fact be for stunts/actor comfort. I am further led to entertain my own suggestion, because I noticed that the web-lines on the suit in all of the spy pictures, are not black.

http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000hd9psOy58oE/s/600/600/SpiderMan-CarThief-OLN9.jpg

Look at how there are a lack of well defined, black lines on the suit. Then compare it with the recently released, official photo.

http://www.ontheflix.com/images/spiderman4officialsuit.jpg

Given that much difference, it doesn't seem too far fetched to think that they may decided to digitally touch up the suit, in other ways. Or, we could merely be looking at the stunt version of the suit, which doesn't need black lines (an unimportant detail that will keep production of multiple stunt suits to a minimum) and does need shoes so that the stunt worker won't injure themselves.

I could be wrong entirely, but I'd rather be skeptical than take part in the heavy criticism that floats around the message boards. I made that mistake when criticizing early footage of The Green Lantern. This time, I will take the wiser, wait and see approach.

[Spider-ManHero12]

If they're for comfort, then why not take the silver off of the shoes to pose for the official picture? Like I said, I think they're in the film.

[Boom]

The eyes aren't black...I hope you realize that.
I have no idea why you're bringing this up :huh:.

[Spider-Who?]

When comparing the spy photos and official images, people (myself included at times), seem to forget that photos DO lie. Especially when we take into consideration that the spy photos are most likely taken by a poor quality camera (especially in comparison to the camera used to take the official photo) that is zoomed in, and in poor lighting conditions. All of these things will affect how much detail the pictures show.

[Spider-Who?]

When comparing the spy photos and official images, people (myself included at times), seem to forget that photos DO lie. Especially when we take into consideration that the spy photos are most likely taken by a poor quality camera (especially in comparison to the camera used to take the official photo) that is zoomed in, and in poor lighting conditions. All of these things will affect how much detail the pictures show.

[Arach Knight]

By comfort, I mean functional comfort. Also, I am looking at the official suit photo on theamazingspiderman.com and I honestly do not see the silver on the boots. In the stunt photos, you can easily the see the silver on the sides and tops of the boots. In the promotional photo, which does show the side and top, I don't really see anything. Perhaps some one can post a lightened version.

Generally speaking though, we don't know what the situation is for promotional shots. Why are there no black web lines on the suit we see in the spy photos, yet we clearly see vivid black lines in the official photo? Why are the silver parts of the boots obscured in the official photo (if they are even there)? It is not implausible that the final design is going to slightly differ from what we have seen in a series of unofficial photos.

[Majik1387]

Why does he have black velcro on only one foot?! Both of his feet have wall crawling abilities, not one!!!!!!

THIS MOVIE IS GOING TO SUCK! BLARRRRGEH! :cmad:



:oldrazz:

[Arach Knight]

Why does he have black velcro on only one foot?! Both of his feet have wall crawling abilities, not one!!!!!!

THIS MOVIE IS GOING TO SUCK! BLARRRRGEH! :cmad:



:oldrazz:

Yeah basically. You win Hype and you win at life, in one fell swoop.

[socool]

I have no idea why you're bringing this up :huh:.

You said because he also changed the eyes.

[rowleyslims]

edit..

[rowleyslims]

^^ True, but we've seen the silver on his shoes in every picture so far. I think the reason that they altered SPider-Msn look in the first film's trailer when he's catching the burglar is just so that they didn't want to spoil the scene.

just to fix your post up a bit.
"but we've seen the silver on his shoes in every" UNOFFICIAL "picture so far." hehehe

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Actually, our most recent "official" picture has the silver on the shoes as well.

Tbh, I'm just going to overlook the feet and not pay any attention to the silver.

[rowleyslims]

[QUOTE=Spider-ManHero12;19846412]^^ Actually, our most recent "official" picture has the silver on the shoes as well.
QUOTE]

could i see said picture? i was only aware of 2 official picture.

Although, if youre talking about the one with him in spidey pose and wrists together like he was going to shoot webs, then i discussed that in the last post i made. You can't use that and say well its 100% officially part of the suit.
Reason being, in that picture they hid the silver. Only we (and others who took time to lighten the picture) know that the picture has silver shoe lining. Whether they hid them because they plan to remove them in post production, or whether they're hidden to avoid the general public freaking out about spiderman wearing track shoes; truth is WE DONT KNOW!

We can make estimated guesses but when it comes down to it they're just guesses. But, to blatently say someone is completely wrong about something that you dont even know all the facts about is just idiotic.

Now disagreeing and thinking someone is wrong, well, were all entitled to that:awesome:

ps. I'm just goona overlook the suit issues and try an enjoy the movie. It's not even a bad adaption, could be worse :P

[Arach Knight]

^

That.

[Knight Rise]

just to fix your post up a bit.
"but we've seen the silver on his shoes in every" UNOFFICIAL "picture so far." hehehe

if you brighten the pic, the shoes are there

[Boom]

You said because he also changed the eyes.
...Yeah. Alex_Spider changed them from yellow to white. The traditional Spider-Man costume has white eyes. I like the white eyes in the manip.

I'm confused :dry:.

[socool]

...Yeah. Alex_Spider changed them from yellow to white. The traditional Spider-Man costume has white eyes. I like the white eyes in the manip.

I'm confused :dry:.

Ohhhhhh! OK. You don't like the yellow. I thought the black was your problem. OK, got it. :o

[roach]

if you were to add something to the Spider suit that was only for the stunt man and not to be a part of the suit...you wouldnt make it stand out by making it bright shiny silver. Taking it out in post would cost way more than going to the local hardware store and getting a can of red spray paint.

[Majik1387]

It all depends on the lighting and how the camera picks it up, if at all.

[rowleyslims]

if you brighten the pic, the shoes are there

dude i just explained that.............................................. .....
do you not know how to read english? or just dont understand? :doh:

[Majik1387]

This whole "if you lighten up the image" is ridiculous.

[roach]

It all depends on the lighting and how the camera picks it up, if at all.

how is lighting and camera not going to pick up shiny silver on red?

[craigdbfan]

how is lighting and camera not going to pick up shiny silver on red?

Exactly.

Lighting might give it a better luminosity and shine but it won't make it somehow disappear.

Anyway if it is removed its probably due to the backlash.

Or Sony is just being smart and hiding the main controversial aspects being the lack of belt, red lining down legs, and of course the horrid looking silver lining on the shoes.

[Majik1387]

how is lighting and camera not going to pick up shiny silver on red?
The same way that the camera is supposed to be picking up black web lines and how the different lenses are being used.

If we knew how it was going to happen, odds are no one here would be complaining about it.

I personally don't find the silver to be as shiny as some are trying to make it out to be.

[Boom]

Ohhhhhh! OK. You don't like the yellow. I thought the black was your problem. OK, got it. :o
It's fine :up:.

We just weren't on the same page and I was confuzzled.

[Spider-ManHero12]

[QUOTE=Spider-ManHero12;19846412]^^ Actually, our most recent "official" picture has the silver on the shoes as well.
QUOTE]

could i see said picture? i was only aware of 2 official picture.

Although, if youre talking about the one with him in spidey pose and wrists together like he was going to shoot webs, then i discussed that in the last post i made. You can't use that and say well its 100% officially part of the suit.
Reason being, in that picture they hid the silver. Only we (and others who took time to lighten the picture) know that the picture has silver shoe lining. Whether they hid them because they plan to remove them in post production, or whether they're hidden to avoid the general public freaking out about spiderman wearing track shoes; truth is WE DONT KNOW!

We can make estimated guesses but when it comes down to it they're just guesses. But, to blatently say someone is completely wrong about something that you dont even know all the facts about is just idiotic.

Now disagreeing and thinking someone is wrong, well, were all entitled to that:awesome:

ps. I'm just goona overlook the suit issues and try an enjoy the movie. It's not even a bad adaption, could be worse :P I said that I "think", I never stated it as fact. The same can be said about what other people think, tbh.

[roach]

The same way that the camera is supposed to be picking up black web lines and how the different lenses are being used.

If we knew how it was going to happen, odds are no one here would be complaining about it.

I personally don't find the silver to be as shiny as some are trying to make it out to be.

you cant compare spy pics to the official pic released

silver becomes shiny when movie lights are used on the suit

[Majik1387]

you cant compare spy pics to the official pic releasedThen everyone has to stop complaining about the silver on the shoes as they're only visible in the spy pics and not the official one. :cwink:

[roach]

people lightened the pic and saw the silver


lines on the suit look different when taken by a professional camera than a crappy camphone

[Majik1387]

people lightened the pic and saw the silver
Doesn't matter, they don't have the silver showing in their pic for whatever reason.

You guys say fan backlash is the only reason, and refuse to give any credit to Webb that the silver might not actually be in the movie.

So, no, it is not visible in the official picture unless tampered with.

[craigdbfan]

I'm sorry Majik you're not making any sense when it comes to the silver deal.

Why would Webb include a silver outlining that is clearly part of the design and wholly intentional to just remove it in post?

How does that seem reasonable at all. If anything they'll stay but will look better on film thanks to post but to say that Webb made the designer include it in the final costume to just remove it in post makes absolutely no sense.

[Alchemyst]

I'm sorry Majik you're not making any sense when it comes to the silver deal.

Why would Webb include a silver outlining that is clearly part of the design and wholly intentional to just remove it in post?

How does that seem reasonable at all. If anything they'll stay but will look better on film thanks to post but to say that Webb made the designer include it in the final costume to just remove it in post makes absolutely no sense.

I was thinking the same exact thing. The stuff that people are pointing out as flaws will be remedied once the final product hits. The silver part of his shoes that seems to just 'take people by suprise' wont be that big of an issue once we're able to see Spider-Man in motion. It's not like he's gonna be standing still 90% of the time

[roach]

Doesn't matter, they don't have the silver showing in their pic for whatever reason.

You guys say fan backlash is the only reason, and refuse to give any credit to Webb that the silver might not actually be in the movie.

So, no, it is not visible in the official picture unless tampered with.

i guess spiderman wont have feet because they werent show either

[NinjaCarm]

I was thinking the same exact thing. The stuff that people are pointing out as flaws will be remedied once the final product hits. The silver part of his shoes that seems to just 'take people by suprise' wont be that big of an issue once we're able to see Spider-Man in motion. It's not like he's gonna be standing still 90% of the time

Thumbs up.

[Ajendo]

People keep talking about and bringing up the, "if you brighten the pic you can see the silver" line. Yet, not one person here has posted this all revealing brightened up pic. Arguing a point where you're referencing an image that is failing to be submitted as proof is pointless. Personally, I dont even care about the costume just so long as it's clearly identifiable as spider-man. This movie has bigger issues to worry about but it WOULD be interesting to see this pic where you can see the silver which nobody seems to want to submit.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I'm sorry Majik you're not making any sense when it comes to the silver deal.

Why would Webb include a silver outlining that is clearly part of the design and wholly intentional to just remove it in post?

How does that seem reasonable at all. If anything they'll stay but will look better on film thanks to post but to say that Webb made the designer include it in the final costume to just remove it in post makes absolutely no sense. Agreed.

As I said, I will overlook them once I see Spidey on film, but I highly doubt that they are not there.

[craigdbfan]

Yeah, I still don't like the silver at all but to say that they put them on to purposefully remove them in post makes zero sense.

If its removed it most defintely was because of the backlash.

[Chris Wallace]

People always say things will be changed in post that NEVER are.

[rowleyslims]

[QUOTE=rowleyslims;19846484] I said that I "think", I never stated it as fact. The same can be said about what other people think, tbh.

my apologies then sir...:word:
and if you want my honest opinion i think they will show up on the final suit and like Alchemist said it wont be as big a deal because he will be in motion 90% of the time.
but then again i still believe that if this movie is a hit, which im sure it will be, that they will go the more comic friendly route and play this off as an early model of his suit.
My only point earlier, by bringing up the fact the silver has been hidden on all official pictures, was that its always a possibility they may decide to head in different directions at times. You cant tell someone they are wrong about something or dont know what they are talking about when you yourself dont even really know what you are talking about.
For example; they thought something may work, got backlash from fans about silver being on the shoe and, like Craigbdfan said, take them out in the final product. its always a possibility. I mean we all know they have plenty of time to make creative changes throughout filming and finalizing.:woot:

ajendo: picture is posted many times is previous pages of this forum. you can prolly even look it up yourself. i mean how hard could it be to find 1 out of 2 official picture for an upcoming spiderman flick?? haha :cwink:

[Troy_Parker]

Oh for ****s sake.

The silver shoe part is going to be on the final suit.

Here:

http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/9626/tasb.jpg

See those? Yeah. Now can we all move on from the shoes. :\

[rowleyslims]

Oh for ****s sake.

The silver shoe part is going to be on the final suit.

Here:

See those? Yeah. Now can we all move on from the shoes. :\

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:awesome:
i think he cracked

[Troy_Parker]

Lol.?

O_O

[chaseter]

That makes the suit look really, really ugly. I like the eyes though.

[Pumpkin_Bomb]

Troy. Dude. People on this board moving on and getting over something? You've been here long enough to know better.

[Oscorp]

I didn't love the silver on the shoes either but I've gotten used to it and it's not really a big deal for me. I love the rest of the suit in that official pic, especially the eyes.

Even if it's not exactly like the classic design, I still like it on its own and IMO, it's not even close to be as bad as the miserable Green Goblin suit for example. It's funny how people moan so much about this suit and still have no problem at all with the Gobby one. However, I guess one could say the other way around as well. I'm aware of the thing called "opinion" and "matter of taste" but I still can't see how this suit could be less acceptable than the Gobby one.

[Immortalfire]

That is one big ass picture.

[wobbly]

People keep talking about and bringing up the, "if you brighten the pic you can see the silver" line. Yet, not one person here has posted this all revealing brightened up pic. Arguing a point where you're referencing an image that is failing to be submitted as proof is pointless. Personally, I dont even care about the costume just so long as it's clearly identifiable as spider-man. This movie has bigger issues to worry about but it WOULD be interesting to see this pic where you can see the silver which nobody seems to want to submit.

Here you go:

http://www.kellcom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Spiderman_awful_boots.jpg

Though they did their best to hide them, with the brightness upped you can see the silver flip-flops present in the costume for all the set pics are are part of the official pic costume as well.

[Pumpkin_Bomb]

lol, yeah I'm sure they were "doing their best to hide them." If they were that worried about what people thought of the designs on the feet, they wouldn't have put them there.

[wobbly]

lol, yeah I'm sure they were "doing their best to hide them." If they were that worried about what people thought of the designs on the feet, they wouldn't have put them there.

Remember this pic came after the set pics where the silver booties were first seen by the public and generally not liked by the fans. Prior to seeing the fans reactions the designers would have not realised just how disliked their 'creative' addition to the design would be.

I don't think it's a leap to believe that after seeing that reaction they did deliberately fade them out with photoshopped shadows (with the lighting in the shot that shadow is not 'natural' btw, that was added) so they didn't stand out for the official shot. The posing, that also hides the legs stripes and absence of the belt at the sides, I can accept was co-incidental.

[Lencho01]

People are still talking about the shoes? :funny:

[Knight Rise]

lol, yeah I'm sure they were "doing their best to hide them." If they were that worried about what people thought of the designs on the feet, they wouldn't have put them there.

or they ****ed it up and now its too late to turn back. why the **** would you take a pic with stunt shoes? they're obviously a part of the suit

[Spider-ManHero12]

People are still talking about the shoes? :funny: Some people just don't want to believe that the silver is on his shoes in the official pictures.

[Troy_Parker]

Some people just don't want to believe that the silver is on his shoes in the official pictures.

Not only that, they refuse to believe it'll be in the actual movie. :\

[Pumpkin_Bomb]

or they ****ed it up and now its too late to turn back. why the **** would you take a pic with stunt shoes? they're obviously a part of the suit

You know I wasn't saying they're for stunts, right? I know they're part of the suit. Doesn't really bother me either.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Not only that, they refuse to believe it'll be in the actual movie. :\ Lol. :awesome:

[NinjaCarm]

People are still talking about the shoes? :funny:

Some people need lives

[Immortalfire]

So much shoe talk, I have altered this thread title slightly.

:spidey:

[El Payaso]

Here you go:

http://www.kellcom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Spiderman_awful_boots.jpg

Though they did their best to hide them, with the brightness upped you can see the silver flip-flops present in the costume for all the set pics are are part of the official pic costume as well.

Funny thing is, without the silver things the boots are already ugly.

[Arach Knight]

I think it is time for this thread to get back to what people like and dislike about the costume. We are dividing ourselves unnecessarily over a matter of pure speculation. I still think that the silver lining will be removed, and it is clear that there are people who think that it won't. Either way, we won't know until we see a trailer (unless the trailers are edited to avoid showing Spider-Man's feet). Ultimately, this has all become unproductive. We should go back to dealing with matters of opinion (what we do and do not like) rather than trying to play Hollywood insider, as if we know what the ultimate fate is for this costume.

[Ponco_87]

i'll take the very minor silver detail on the shoe any day than the silver webbing..

[Spider-ManHero12]

i'll take the very minor silver detail on the shoe any day than the silver webbing.. I disagree, but like I said, I'm just going to overlook the silver on the shoes.

[Infinity9999x]

Honestly, I really don't mind the suit that much. It closer to the original comic book design of Spider-man then TDK suit was to the original comic book design of Batman.

And honestly, if the movie's good, I won't give two rat turds about it.

[Goku Goes Crazy]

I don't understand the big deal about the silver shoes. Not like the camera is going to be closed in on the shoes for the whole movie.

[rowleyslims]

I don't understand the big deal about the silver shoes. Not like the camera is going to be closed in on the shoes for the whole movie.
you didnt get the memo? this movie is actually going to center around the silver part of his shoes.

[El Payaso]

I don't understand the big deal about the silver shoes. Not like the camera is going to be closed in on the shoes for the whole movie.

True. Real filmmakers know this.

"Nobody will ever notice that. Filmmaking is not about the tiny details. It's about the big picture."

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m387/mrbungle_08/basura/edwood007.jpg





Anyways, that's the problem with bad things vs good things. When they're good, many times they just work; when they're bad they tend to attract more attention to them, to stand out no matter how small they are.

[Spider-Vader]

The funny thing is. All of you whiners, would of b****ed if he had a costume similar to the Rami one. "THIS MOVIE IS UNORIGINAL! WHY DIDN'T THEY DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT? WAAAAAA!!"

[roach]

Yes because its unoriginal to have a costume look just like the comics

[Infinity9999x]

True. Real filmmakers know this.

"Nobody will ever notice that. Filmmaking is not about the tiny details. It's about the big picture."

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m387/mrbungle_08/basura/edwood007.jpg





Anyways, that's the problem with bad things vs good things. When they're good, many times they just work; when they're bad they tend to attract more attention to them, to stand out no matter how small they are.

The thing is though, nobody but us gives a crap about the silver lining on Spider-man's shoes. And even then, I don't even give a crap anymore. We're more obsessive then competing fashion design students. Seriously.

[Spider-ManHero12]

if the movie's good, I won't give two rat turds about it. Agreed.

[chaseter]

i'll take the very minor silver detail on the shoe any day than the silver webbing..

Because that makes sense. :o

[Mace Bloodstone]

Hope some new pictures come this week. http://smilies.blazemint.com/s/otn/blobs/boldblue.gif

[craigdbfan]

We've been dry of news for a while now.

This silver talk has run its course.

[Mace Bloodstone]

Silver talk will go away for awhile, but history always repeats itself.

[El Payaso]

The funny thing is. All of you whiners, would of b****ed if he had a costume similar to the Rami one. "THIS MOVIE IS UNORIGINAL! WHY DIDN'T THEY DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT? WAAAAAA!!"

Really? Anything different even when it's a useless abomination? Just like that?

The thing is though, nobody but us gives a crap about the silver lining on Spider-man's shoes. And even then, I don't even give a crap anymore. We're more obsessive then competing fashion design students. Seriously.

Nobody else does? Again - really? But I might agree: maybe you don't give a crap anymore, sure. Now, nobody else?

[Arach Knight]

The thing is though, nobody but us gives a crap about the silver lining on Spider-man's shoes. And even then, I don't even give a crap anymore. We're more obsessive then competing fashion design students. Seriously.

That is something that comic fans rarely realize. These films are not for us. We are the minority. This film is for people who watched this character in the old 1967 animated series. This film is for kids who grew up watching the 90s animated series. This film is for those who are just now growing up with Spectacular Spider-Man the animated series. Comic nerds (or geeks, if you prefer the term) are a rare breed. Our attention to detail and inaccuracy matters little in the grand scheme of things.

[zanos]

Honestly, I really don't mind the suit that much. It closer to the original comic book design of Spider-man then TDK suit was to the original comic book design of Batman.

And honestly, if the movie's good, I won't give two rat turds about it.

If silver shoes and a radically altered costume is any indications of how Matthew Webb's mind works I'm sure the film will be brilliant!

[NinjaCarm]

I hope we get some sort of footage soon to defuse any surge of hate for those basking in their inglorious shame of the silver shoes.

[Ajendo]

If silver shoes and a radically altered costume is any indications of how Matthew Webb's mind works I'm sure the film will be brilliant!

His name isn't Matthew.

[Spider-ManHero12]

We've been dry of news for a while now.

This silver talk has run its course. So true. :csad:

[echostation]

The costume has silver streaked shoes or boots? Big difference eh Mojitos

[Mercurius]

The reason for the silver shoes is that Spidey is auditioning for Black Swan. He is always so poor, and being so agile, he thought: "why not?".

Or maybe that is a costume they will introduce during his Broadway piece.

The silver thing is the metal point. For ballet purposes.

[Troy_Parker]

Man I wish we had some new stills. They don't even have to be of Spider-Man, maybe a few of Gwen and Peter, Nels Van Adder (?) or someone.

[NinjaCarm]

Man I wish we had some new stills. They don't even have to be of Spider-Man, maybe a few of Gwen and Peter, Nels Van Adder (?) or someone.

How about a Nike ad for the silver shoes

:awesome:

[Infinity9999x]

Really? Anything different even when it's a useless abomination? Just like that?



Nobody else does? Again - really? But I might agree: maybe you don't give a crap anymore, sure. Now, nobody else?

When I said "us" I wasn't referring to you and me, I was referring to the nerd community as a whole. However, we need to realize that we make up a teeny tiny percentage of the people who will actually pay to watch these films. So when I said "nobody else" I was referring to the general public, who, in all honesty, don't give a crap.

Of course, if BB was any indication, it's going to be until about the second Spider-man movie in this series until the GP realizes this isn't a continuation/prequel of the old series.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Man I wish we had some new stills. They don't even have to be of Spider-Man, maybe a few of Gwen and Peter, Nels Van Adder (?) or someone. Agreed. They're probably filming in the studio.

[Spidey_62]

I don't really see why we need to see new pics right now, we should be happy they've shown us anything at all right now. Let alone all they've already shown with still 14 months until the movie comes out. We can wait, guys. :word:

[Spider-ManHero12]

True, though, Sony is known for releasing stuff eraly for these Spider-Man films, and that's a good thing. We got a trailer for Spider-Man 3 in June of 2006. :up:

[Doctor Jones]

So could we see a trailer this summer, even before CC? Most likely it will be first with CC, but who knows? I'd absolutely love one in June or so.

I'd love it to come as a surprise. To attach it to a big film this summer and no one knows about it. But that's pretty much impossible both ways.

[Travesty]

I'm not the biggest Spidey fan, but I have a feeling that this will be a great movie. I don't know why, but I just have that feeling, regardless of Teh Silver.

Teh Silverrrrrrrrrrr!!:argh:

[Arach Knight]

With all of the spy photos, we have already seen so much. Gwen, Peter, the suit, action scenes. All we need are a few good shots of Ben and May and a shot of the primary villain, which I suspect won't be seen until the shoot relocates to New York.

[socool]

So could we see a trailer this summer, even before CC? Most likely it will be first with CC, but who knows? I'd absolutely love one in June or so.

I'd love it to come as a surprise. To attach it to a big film this summer and no one knows about it. But that's pretty much impossible both ways.

I'm thinking a teaser before CC and a trailer at CC

[Arach Knight]

I'm thinking a teaser before CC and a trailer at CC

That sounds about right. I don't think they would pass up the chance to debut something at San Diego Comic-Con.

[NinjaCarm]

We've seen enough is right, and it's very far away. We've been spoiled.

I look forward to some sort of footage at SDCC but that's it. We shouldn't be getting any photos in all honestly until November 2011.

Don't spoil it for yourself.

[storyteller]

Its still possible that the boots really are for the stunt purposes

A) They may have just used the stunt suit for a promo picture. With all the pics of the shoot from the internet they got an official one out.

but

B) They could have made the silver like part of the design. Could they not have covered them with the boot material or spray painted them red and blue?

[Alex The Great]

That's just wishful thinking

[roach]

Its still possible that the boots really are for the stunt purposes

A) They may have just used the stunt suit for a promo picture. With all the pics of the shoot from the internet they got an official one out.

but

B) They could have made the silver like part of the design. Could they not have covered them with the boot material or spray painted them red and blue?

no
a) On a movie of this type there are several versions of the suit...suits for the stuntmen, damaged suits, suits designed for the wire rigging and what is refered to as the hero suit. The Hero suit is the one you use for publicity pics. Generally the stunt suits arent as detailed as the hero suit. It just needs to look like the hero suit.

b)yes if it wasnt to be apart of the design it would have been covered with red.

[Arach Knight]

@Roach

You seem fairly certain of those facts. I assume you do production work. Perhaps as a stunt man or set coordinator?

[roach]

@Roach

You seem fairly certain of those facts. I assume you do production work. Perhaps as a stunt man or set coordinator?

Currently in film school...current class is costuming and make up

[Arach Knight]

Ah. Well that explains things. It is nice when academia can be introduced into casual conversation.

[roach]

Ah. Well that explains things. It is nice when academia can be introduced into casual conversation.

oh I am having the time of my life at school

[spida-man]

So much shoe talk, I have altered this thread title slightly.

:spidey:

lmfao. nice

[spida-man]

question: why do ppl hate underarm webbing so much? i mean it was part of the original design for Spider-Man...and me personally I like it...it kinda annoys me if it's like stretched out super long like ditko would sometimes draw it but when it's short similar to how the Romitas draw it i don't mind it it all. looks cool imo

[Saint]

Yeah, the underarm webbing can look pretty cool when drawn by the right artists. If it's drawn in a more ragged way (the way Spider-Man 2099's web-cape is drawn) then it can even be used to accentuate the creepiness of Spider-Man's design.

[Spider-ManHero12]

So could we see a trailer this summer, even before CC? Most likely it will be first with CC, but who knows? I'd absolutely love one in June or so.

I'd love it to come as a surprise. To attach it to a big film this summer and no one knows about it. But that's pretty much impossible both ways. Agreed. Remember, the marketing for S-M3 was through the roof very early on, and honestly, it was fun seeing Spidey literally everywhere for a year and a half. I have a feeling Sony will want to do the same for this. :up:

[Goran]

Made this using the hero-silhouette from Hero-Machine :)
Don't like the mask, but I think the rest is okay. It was really hard to match the real webbing on the costume...

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e288/kokigoran/spideysuit-1.jpg

[Immortalfire]

You forgot to put something in his eye...or DID you? :wow:

[chaseter]

Silver shoes. Silver shoes. It's Christmas time, in the city.

[Arach Knight]

question: why do ppl hate underarm webbing so much? i mean it was part of the original design for Spider-Man...and me personally I like it...it kinda annoys me if it's like stretched out super long like ditko would sometimes draw it but when it's short similar to how the Romitas draw it i don't mind it it all. looks cool imo

I am actually a fan of the webbing. I am glad that it is featured in the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon. Also, my favorite and signed issue of ASM (#325) also features the underarm webbing.

[Arach Knight]

Made this using the hero-silhouette from Hero-Machine :)
Don't like the mask, but I think the rest is okay. It was really hard to match the real webbing on the costume...

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e288/kokigoran/spideysuit-1.jpg

Some how, the costume looks far better as an illustration. I guess I will have to see how it looks in motion, when Garfield is wearing it.

[Wolvieboy17]

I honestly don't mind the aesthetics of the silver shoes, except someone answer me this... How does he stick to the walls through the thick, hard rubber soles of the shoes?

[Travesty]

I honestly don't mind the aesthetics of the silver shoes, except someone answer me this... How does he stick to the walls through the thick, hard rubber soles of the shoes?
With movie magic.:oldrazz:

[itsleroy]

Costume still looks really incomplete without a belt. Maybe they're adding it in with CGI?

Think about it, since he has mechanical webshooters, he'll most likely have web-canister attachments to his belt. Maybe they thought it the belt with web-canisters would look better with CGI? Then again, they probably would've shown it in the most recent official shots..

[Spider-Who?]

Costume still looks really incomplete without a belt. Maybe they're adding it in with CGI?

Think about it, since he has mechanical webshooters, he'll most likely have web-canister attachments to his belt. Maybe they thought it the belt with web-canisters would look better with CGI? Then again, they probably would've shown it in the most recent official shots..
honestly....no. That'd be the worst use of CGI in the long history of bad uses of CGI.

[Arach Knight]

Actually, the suit does have a partial belt. It merely does not connect in the front. But it is present in the back. http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000WEhrt83FVuo/s/600/600/Spidey-TruckStunt-OLN12.jpg

I am fairly certain that there will be no added belt. It would have been featured in the two promotional shots by now.

[roach]

I honestly don't mind the aesthetics of the silver shoes, except someone answer me this... How does he stick to the walls through the thick, hard rubber soles of the shoes?

super glue

[Immortalfire]

The absence of a belt is really odd. Especially since it's always connected to the "stripe" down the center. Now it just...ends. :huh:

[NinjaCarm]

The absence of a belt is really odd. Especially since it's always connected to the "stripe" down the center. Now it just...ends. :huh:

I have to agree. They probably made that decision to a) differentiate from the last costume or b) down the line he will have a more accurate type costume and this is his preliminary costume (entire first film).

But I'm not having a stroke about it like some fans.

[Alchemyst]

I have to agree. They probably made that decision to a) differentiate from the last costume or b) down the line he will have a more accurate type costume and this is his preliminary costume (entire first film).

But I'm not having a stroke about it like some fans.

That's the way I'm looking at it, I can't think of any superhero films aside from Superman where he had one consistent suit, no changes made at all. The ASM sequels may eventually have a suit that looks exactly like the comic book version.

[Troy_Parker]

I can see him having a belt of some sort by the end of the movie/in a sequel but apart from that, no other alterations.

[NinjaCarm]

I can see him having a belt of some sort by the end of the movie/in a sequel but apart from that, no other alterations.

I can see them actually streamlining the suit back to the original costume as we have seen in the comics / Raimi films but still with black webbing and webshooters.

It would be a nice touch to see a progression, perhaps that is what they have in mind.

[El Payaso]

The absence of a belt is really odd. Especially since it's always connected to the "stripe" down the center. Now it just...ends. :huh:

I think the replacement of the webbing for some random lines is even *odder*. :csad:

[nikdavies15]

I honestly don't mind the aesthetics of the silver shoes, except someone answer me this... How does he stick to the walls through the thick, hard rubber soles of the shoes?

I'm with you on that one.

That's what I was wondering a long time back in this thread, when I figured that the shoes would be edited out in post production along with the cables and wires. It's not hard to do, and how often will his feet be in full view anyway? That side of the truck shot needs a lot of post production work, as will all of the ones with cables, velcro, etc....so why not just take the detail off the feet too?

Not trying to create another drawn out conversation about it, but I can't get past my thought that the shoes are there because they provide structure to the feet to add the velcro, and protection when they are running in the street. And if you are going to pick a running shoe, Asics is the best out there.

In the comic books, he doesn't have soles to the feet of the costume, as he doesn't have to......he's Spiderman.....he's hard as nails, like. Reality, or at least normal bods filming live action Spiderman stuff, they need soles on their feet to run around. Have you tried running on tarmac barefoot - it bloody hurts after a while.

I'm just sayin'......

[Alchemyst]

I'm with you on that one.

That's what I was wondering a long time back in this thread, when I figured that the shoes would be edited out in post production along with the cables and wires. It's not hard to do, and how often will his feet be in full view anyway? That side of the truck shot needs a lot of post production work, as will all of the ones with cables, velcro, etc....so why not just take the detail off the feet too?

Not trying to create another drawn out conversation about it, but I can't get past my thought that the shoes are there because they provide structure to the feet to add the velcro, and protection when they are running in the street. And if you are going to pick a running shoe, Asics is the best out there.

In the comic books, he doesn't have soles to the feet of the costume, as he doesn't have to......he's Spiderman.....he's hard as nails, like. Reality, or at least normal bods filming live action Spiderman stuff, they need soles on their feet to run around. Have you tried running on tarmac barefoot - it bloody hurts after a while.

I'm just sayin'......

I'm guessing that his ability to stick to walls is a part of his mental system. In the Raimi films, Peter looked at his thumb and noticed small hairs forming, and then he just started climbing. We don't know the circumstances in this film, if they go the route of the 60's cartoon, maybe a car could be feet away from hitting Peter and he jumps out of the way, only to notice that he jumped a good 10-20 feet and attached to a wall.

[Infinity9999x]

I honestly don't mind the aesthetics of the silver shoes, except someone answer me this... How does he stick to the walls through the thick, hard rubber soles of the shoes?

Same way he did in SM1 when he had sneakers on and climbed a wall. Movie magic and suspension of disbelief.

[Wolvieboy17]

Oh right, because those are totally plausible concepts right there. I questioned it in SM1 and i'll question it here too.

[Stelze]

Oh right, because those are totally plausible concepts right there. I questioned it in SM1 and i'll question it here too.

Maybe his hands are enough to lift his weight and he just uses his feet to stabilize?

[Wolvieboy17]

Well that wouldn't explain how he can stick to the roof.

I kinda let it slide in SM1 with his costume, because they never showed how thick the soles of his feet were, so I kinda took it with a grain of salt that they could be a thin cloth layer or something that his feet 'grip hairs' could stick through, like his fingers.

But this costume has some chunky looking sneakers.

[Mace Bloodstone]

His spidey nervous system has the ability to control the atomic static cling to the surfaces he touches. Either a real soft attraction or like a death-grip attraction.

Through the gloves of the spidey suit I look at it this way...
I still get a static shock everytime i wear a jacket or extra clothing when i get out of my car, either on my forearm, my calf, or whatever touches first as soon as I touch the outside of my car door.
If my leg can get shocked through my jeans why couldn't spider-man control the atomic static cling through his spider suit?

[Spider-ManHero12]

It's fantasy, lol. Suspension of disbelief is what I say.

[Mace Bloodstone]

That's not as fun though.

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ True.

[Wolvieboy17]

It is an interesting theory... Although, once again completely negated by thick soled rubber shoes.

[Wolvieboy17]

That's not what suspension of disbelief means though, it doesn't mean that it serves as an answer to the question 'how does that work?'. If you have to ask the question while seeing the film, then they've failed. To properly make an audience suspend disbelief, things like that don't even occur.

A good example is in the X-Men films, when you see Toad eat the bird. If you saw that as an isolated thing, you might think "why would someone do that? Just because he has a big tongue, he eats birds whole and alive?" but in context, by that stage you've already seen several different mutant powers, that you take the whole concept of powers as a given, and don't question that.

In SM 1, Peter Parker starts as a normal person and gains super powers but still exists in a normal world. The only way I think that film got away with not answering many of the questions it raised is because the tone wasn't overly serious, it was fun and light and didn't take itself too seriously.

But if this Spidey film has a different tone, if they try to play it more seriously, which it looks like they might (I'm not talking gritty, but not as cartoony as the Raimi films) then they will probably have to address these issues. That doesn't mean a whole scene dedicated to Peter crafting special wall crawl friendly shoes (As some people seem to think it means) but it could be anything from a line of dialogue to simply how they portray the power in itself.

[catlas]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_F4QKdL21Cp0/TNjDVCLQuJI/AAAAAAAAAHg/oiqQ56hKQVU/s1600/get-a-life.jpg

[Wolvieboy17]

Sweet Irony.

[Reikowolf]

what a horrid costume.

:( fail

[Reikowolf]

although the costume won't matter as much if the story is there.

it really reminds me of the House of M costume

[Alchemyst]

what a horrid costume.

:( fail

I really don't see how it is horrid or a failure when just about every other comic book adaptation deviates from the source material in some way as far as their appearance.

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, i'm not entirely amazed by the costume but honestly? i don't care unless the movie bad. So we'll see.

[Arach Knight]

That's not what suspension of disbelief means though, it doesn't mean that it serves as an answer to the question 'how does that work?'. If you have to ask the question while seeing the film, then they've failed. To properly make an audience suspend disbelief, things like that don't even occur.


That about sums it up. Suspension of disbelief means that we can accept the impossible, so long as it is made believable in the world that the story takes place. For instance, we know that nothing can travel faster than light, because a photon has so little mass, that it is able to achieve the speed it does. To that end, something like the Millennium Falcon, let alone something as massive as the USS Enterprise, could never realistically even approach light speed, simply because they have too much mass. And even if they did have the ability to reach light speed, we know that as things go faster, they gain more mass. That means that anytime the Enterprise hit warp speed, it would leave this vacuum where it once was, causing who knows what kind of damage.

However, they explain the technology well enough so that we can believe that this is all possible, within the context of the Star Trek universe. And sometimes, the explanation doesn't have to be deep. Sometimes it just has to be consistent with what is already established. Star Wars never explains it's technology, but because we see other forms of outlandish technology, everything simply fits.

On the other hand, Spider-Man 1 clearly shows the hairs protruding from Peter's pores. We know that he needs thin clothes or skin to surface contact in order for his powers to work effectively. Thus, it makes no sense when the bottoms of his feet stick to a surface, while in a soled shoe. It isn't as if barbs come through his fingers, they are just hairs, like on a spider.

To be fair though, I always assumed that Peter merely used his hands to hold himself up, sort of like people who scale a wall by reaching up with their arms and hoisting themselves up with arm strength alone, rather than using their legs to help them shimmy up the wall. He would have the leg strength to do it. Unfortunately, that illusion is broken by the second film, in which we see Peter standing against the wall while using his arms to pull out the wiring of Doc Ock's machine during the start of the film.

[Wolvieboy17]

Watch out dude, someone will post 'get a life' again if we start talking about this. :P

[roach]

the scene in sm3 where he somersaults off the wall negates the only clingy hands notion too

[Wolvieboy17]

Also in SM1 where is using all limbs to cling to the roof

[Arach Knight]

This is why I usually "turn my brain off." It doesn't always work. In fact, my girlfriend complains that I ruin shows by pointing out contradictions and poor explanations. So I am slowly learning that if you want to enjoy yourself, sometimes you have to let go and veg out. Not to say that Spider-Man films are mindless, but you have to let certain things go, otherwise it will all fall to pieces like a house of cards.

For instance, X-Men First Class takes place in the same universe as the first three X-Men films. We know that in X2, Beast had no hair (Hank McCoy was interviewed on television regarding mutant registration). In X3 he has hair. They never explain it in the films, but comic fans know that this is from a separate accident that was unrelated to his mutation. In X3, Beast's hair recedes as he gets closer to the child that can negate mutant powers. That made no sense. Worse, in X-Men First Class, they clearly show Beast, with fur, even though the existing movies convey that he gets the fur later on (between the second and third film). If I keep thinking about it, I will just get pissed off and wind up not wanting to watch the film, for fear of what else will go wrong or unobserved. However, because I want to enjoy my summer movie season, I will pay such oversights no real mind.

[Mace Bloodstone]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_F4QKdL21Cp0/TNjDVCLQuJI/AAAAAAAAAHg/oiqQ56hKQVU/s1600/get-a-life.jpg

get a believable hairpiece Shat :oldrazz:

[NinjaCarm]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_F4QKdL21Cp0/TNjDVCLQuJI/AAAAAAAAAHg/oiqQ56hKQVU/s1600/get-a-life.jpg

You know William Shatner should be in a superhero movie somewhere

[chaseter]

He could be the Penguin...on Broadway.

[Spider-Who?]

how his feet are able to stick to walls is probably the last thing I'm concerned with in this movie. No one asks how Superman flies. No one *****es about there not being any explanation for him being able to defy gravity and move with more grace and speed than a drunk bumblebee. People just say, "one of his powers is flight"; and that's all you need to know. Same with Spider-Man. One of his powers is wall crawling, so we assume that the cloth on his hands, and the soles of his boots are thin/porous enough to not impede this ability.

[Rodrigo90]

Maybe he puts sticky tape on the soles of the shoes?

[Wolvieboy17]

Are you serious? They do explain how Superman can fly, he's a freaking alien and the different gravity types and proximity to the sun enhances his ability. I know very little about Superman as it is, but i'm sure any self respecting Supes fan could dispute your point with a veritable fountain of knowledge.

It's not the POWER being questioned, it's the lack of any possible explanation. Your example would make sense if Superman just showed up and could do stuff, with no context or explanation of where he came from and why he has powers. Spider-Man being bitten by a spider and getting powers is one thing, but since in this he has no organic web shooters, his only real abilities are spidey sense, increased strength/agility and wall crawling. The first two are internal, passive abilities that can just 'occur', perhaps be explained by some kind of blood sample or biological study. The wall crawling is the odd one out. As was pointed out, in SM 1 showing the hairs was a good way of explaining how it could work, but to just let it be accepted with out even a character speculating on what it is or how it works is just lazy.

[Arach Knight]

how his feet are able to stick to walls is probably the last thing I'm concerned with in this movie. No one asks how Superman flies. No one *****es about there not being any explanation for him being able to defy gravity and move with more grace and speed than a drunk bumblebee. People just say, "one of his powers is flight"; and that's all you need to know. Same with Spider-Man. One of his powers is wall crawling, so we assume that the cloth on his hands, and the soles of his boots are thin/porous enough to not impede this ability.


Well, that is the problem. The use of soled boots contradicts explanations given within the various canons of Spider-Man. In the films, we clearly see the hooked hairs in his palms (and can thus assume the same for his feet), that allow for an electrostatic charge (like a real spider). In the 616, it has been offered that Spidey has some sort of molecular electrostatic charge that allows him to cling (again like a real spider). Those explanations require that Spider-Man be able to have relatively close contact between the palms/soles of his hands/feet and a surface, in order to cling to said surface.

No one is complaining about Superman, because there is nothing contradictory about him flying. That is, the explanations given, are always consistent. He comes from a planet of far higher gravity <---- I always liked that one, because it meant that humans only interpret his actions as flight, when in effect they are prolonged jumps. It has been said that he can simply defy gravity when under the influence of radiation from the yellow portion of the infrared spectrum. We can accept that, because all of his powers are said to come from this source. We can suspend disbelief because this explanation is consistent.

However, Spider-Man is supposed to have the powers of a spider. Spiders are real. We know that they cling to walls because of an electrostatic charge that is produced by the millions of hairs on their legs. The Spider-Man films try to incorporate that logic, and the comics pretty much use that logic, just without the hairs producing the electrostatic charge. Heck, even Stan Lee thought web shooters were a good idea because real spiders do not shoot webs, least of all, from a useful place from which Peter could swing on them. It is all about consistency. Hard soled boots contradict the established canon.

[Spider-Who?]

have you ever thought about the idea that the soles on the boots are more for the protection of the actor and stuntmen, and less about a purposeful design element of a fictional character's costume?

[Mr. Earle]

I love this thread's title! OMG THE SHOES ARE SILVER indeed!

[Wolvieboy17]

No, because that would be simply ridiculous to make the main design of a suit for a character, who should be the most important thing in the film, based around the actor, something that shouldn't exist as a concept within the film world.

If they have stunt shoes for comfort thats fine, but you cut those shots out with trick photography etc like the hobbit feet we've seen Chris Evans in Cap, or the puffy TDK suit photo. You don't put the 'stunt shoes' on the freakin movie poster.

[Arach Knight]

have you ever thought about the idea that the soles on the boots are more for the protection of the actor and stuntmen, and less about a purposeful design element of a fictional character's costume?

Actually, post #770. I already proffered that exact idea.

[Spider-Who?]

Are you serious? They do explain how Superman can fly, he's a freaking alien and the different gravity types and proximity to the sun enhances his ability. I know very little about Superman as it is, but i'm sure any self respecting Supes fan could dispute your point with a veritable fountain of knowledge.

Quite serious. We're obviously talking about the movie iterations of these characters, which do not pause to go over +40 years worth of writers' explanations for their powers. If, within the movie realm, saying Superman is an alien is enough to validate his powers (which are arguably more far fetched then the "spider-foot" issue here); then saying Spider-Man can stick to walls should be enough as well. You can't have that double standard.

[/QUOTE]It's not the POWER being questioned, it's the lack of any possible explanation. Your example would make sense if Superman just showed up and could do stuff, with no context or explanation of where he came from and why he has powers. Spider-Man being bitten by a spider and getting powers is one thing, but since in this he has no organic web shooters, his only real abilities are spidey sense, increased strength/agility and wall crawling. The first two are internal, passive abilities that can just 'occur', perhaps be explained by some kind of blood sample or biological study. The wall crawling is the odd one out. As was pointed out, in SM 1 showing the hairs was a good way of explaining how it could work, but to just let it be accepted with out even a character speculating on what it is or how it works is just lazy.[/QUOTE]

Considering this is a reboot, and not an origin story, i don't see the need to delve into exploring the birth of Spidey's powers, since everyone and their mother say the originals. But if the story calls for it, thats fine. But this isn't even what we're talking about. The argument has been about the issue of Spidey being able to use his feet with those soles on his boots. THAT is the aspect I'm saying is a ridiculous complaint, and can, and is, an accpepted aspect of suspension of belief. Its something minutely small compared to people flying, lazer vision, web swinging, etc. You cover the basics, and the anal details won't matter.

The only way I would agree with you guys and say that the soles are a problem is if Spidey was running around wearing these:

http://www.specopstactical.com/shop/catalog/images/5098_SMOKEYBRANCH_THINSULATE_BOOT.jpg

In summation, I'll repeat to you what I said to A. Knight:


Have you ever thought about the idea that the soles on the boots are more for the protection of the actor and stuntmen, and less about being an intended, purposeful design element of a fictional character's costume?

[Wolvieboy17]

Well I already replied to your summation, you clearly hadn't read it when you posted that.

I've explained on previous pages how 'suspension of disbelief' doesn't just work as a given.
It's old territory really, but suspending your disbelief doesn't mean you just blindly accept everything you see on a screen because it's a movie. There has to be an attempt to explain the reality and context of the given situations in the film. The suspension of disbelief comes in when we accept that a spider has given this guy powers. The point where an audience would lose interest however is if we didn't see any realistic reaction from the teenage recipient of these powers. If he just went "Yeah, that makes sense. I can do all this stuff and i'm totally cool with it" it would just ring false. So to sell it, you have to show this person reacting to the powers. Now, how would Spidey trying to understand his new powers and how they work NOT achieve this? If your one, practical power is to stick to walls, and assuming he's even vaguely close to the comic character with his scientific knowledge, he would try to figure out how it works.

As I said in previous posts, I don't care about the shoes as an isolated thing, just that sort of approach is indicative of film makers not paying care to details that harm the reality of the film. It could be those shoes, it could be an 'adamantium bullet', it could be how a poor high school student manages to make not only one but several elaborate and expensive looking superhero costumes with detailed and specific webbing patterns that would have taken months to complete, and with no visible zip.

[Arach Knight]

^ Actually, I think the costume goes in with suspension of disbelief. If it were sewn by hand, like in the comics, it would look like crap. We want our heroes to look heroic, therefore, we have to accept that he some how has the ability to acquire a great looking suit. The alternative, is a costume that he could actually afford.

[Spider-Who?]

No, because that would be simply ridiculous to make the main design of a suit for a character, who should be the most important thing in the film, based around the actor, something that shouldn't exist as a concept within the film world.

If they have stunt shoes for comfort thats fine, but you cut those shots out with trick photography etc like the hobbit feet we've seen Chris Evans in Cap, or the puffy TDK suit photo. You don't put the 'stunt shoes' on the freakin movie poster.

:doh:

We're talking about the SOLES OF A SHOE, here. The absolute LEAST important design element of a costume.

We're also talking about a costume that is worn all the time, not in bits and pieces, but as a whole. There is no need to were "hobbit stunt feet", when they can add a simple sole to the boot and call it a day. You're acting like the soles are going to be the primary focus of the costume. I'd be surprised if we have clear shots of the bottom of his feet for more than 3 seconds of the entire film. And this is coming from someone who HATES the silver on his shoes.

I assume you're wanting Spider-Man to run around wearing what amounts to nothing but socks?

Which is more acceptable to you:

Spider-Man fights, kicks, jumps, wall crawls, etc on dirt, brick, pavement, wood, glass, etc all while wearing SOCKS, and he never gets cut feet, and his SOCKS never rip....

or

Spider-Man has a thin sole of some type on his feet, that still allows for his wall crawling to work.

There's been talk about Spidey using electromagnetism to cling to surfaces, with or without the hairs. In the comics, there have been explanations given that the electromagnetism is strong enough to pass through his suit. Boom. There you go. No more need to complain.

Actually, post #770. I already proffered that exact idea.

:huh: then why is there still a complaint from you?

[Wolvieboy17]

It was completely unbelievable within the context. We've just seen the guy doing WRESTLING to try and earn up a little money. Now he can somehow afford an impractical, and impossible to design by hand, with no proper equipment, suit?

It was just pure laziness. Not even a single montage or shot showing him either making it, or getting into it or any of the functionalities. It totally disconnected from the character and most likely contributed to the fact that Maguires Peter Parker was nowhere near as endearing as he is in the comics.

[Wolvieboy17]

Dude, you've seriously got to catch up. You're like several posts behind. I don't even care about shoes specifically, I care about film makers cutting corners because it's easier.

[Rodrigo90]

These are the shoes... I think.http://c181321.r21.cf0.rackcdn.com/PHAqcMeYkHl0DH_1_m.jpg

[Arach Knight]

:huh: then why is there still a complaint from you?

Because a thick sole is still contradictory. However, I will reiterate my previous points.

1) They are likely for stunt work, and rather than have the stunt actors wear separate gear, they integrated it into the costume. Spider-Man may have high endurance, but an actor in a costume is only human. Their comfort/safety is important.

2) In all truth, just because Spidey has high endurance, does not mean that he isn't uncomfortable while walking across graveled roof tops and other rough, angled, jagged surfaces. Having soles makes sense in that regard, as he won't have to deal with the distraction of the texture of a rough surface.

3) It still makes no sense within the context of Spidey's powers, so I can see the legitimacy of Wolvieboy's complaint. My personal opinion and a valid argument from Wolvieboy, can be mutually exclusive. I can entertain both thoughts with ease.

[Spider-Who?]

Well I already replied to your summation, you clearly hadn't read it when you posted that.

Yeah, it seems we were typing at the same time.

I've explained on previous pages how 'suspension of disbelief' doesn't just work as a given.
It's old territory really, but suspending your disbelief doesn't mean you just blindly accept everything you see on a screen because it's a movie. There has to be an attempt to explain the reality and context of the given situations in the film. The suspension of disbelief comes in when we accept that a spider has given this guy powers. The point where an audience would lose interest however is if we didn't see any realistic reaction from the teenage recipient of these powers. If he just went "Yeah, that makes sense. I can do all this stuff and i'm totally cool with it" it would just ring false. So to sell it, you have to show this person reacting to the powers. Now, how would Spidey trying to understand his new powers and how they work NOT achieve this? If your one, practical power is to stick to walls, and assuming he's even vaguely close to the comic character with his scientific knowledge, he would try to figure out how it works.

I'm not saying that this shouldn't be done, if this is another origin. But signs point to Peter already being Spidey in the movie, so him reacting to and trying to understand powers he obviously has come to grips with doesn't seem like a logical inclusion. Going back to Superman, we don't see Clark trying to study and explain his powers in Superman Returns. This doesn't include the web shooters, as I expect a flash back to explain them for the GA.

As I said in previous posts, I don't care about the shoes as an isolated thing, just that sort of approach is indicative of film makers not paying care to details that harm the reality of the film. It could be those shoes, it could be an 'adamantium bullet', it could be how a poor high school student manages to make not only one but several elaborate and expensive looking superhero costumes with detailed and specific webbing patterns that would have taken months to complete, and with no visible zip.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that the soles of the shoes are indicative of anything as important as harming the reality of the film. Honestly, I think that falls more into excited fanboyism trying to come up with something to complain about/discuss during a dry spell.

[Spider-Who?]

Because a thick sole is still contradictory. However, I will reiterate my previous points.

1) They are likely for stunt work, and rather than have the stunt actors wear separate gear, they integrated it into the costume. Spider-Man may have high endurance, but an actor in a costume is only human. Their comfort/safety is important.

2) In all truth, just because Spidey has high endurance, does not mean that he isn't uncomfortable while walking across graveled roof tops and other rough, angled, jagged surfaces. Having soles makes sense in that regard, as he won't have to deal with the distraction of the texture of a rough surface.

Agreed.

3) It still makes no sense within the context of Spidey's powers, so I can see the legitimacy of Wolvieboy's complaint. My personal opinion and a valid argument from Wolvieboy, can be mutually exclusive. I can entertain both thoughts with ease.

No! You can't! :cmad:

[Wolvieboy17]

Superman Returns was a sequel, not a reboot.

I think maybe you need to watch those movies again.

[Immortalfire]

Superman Returns was a sequel, not a reboot.

I think maybe you need to watch those movies again.

Vague sequel..maybe. Even Bryan Singer didn't know what it was.

But that's a whole other chat. Back to the costume..are the shoes still silver? :eek:

[Spider-Who?]

And that matters how?

The fact of the matter is, it was a NEW movie, made by a completely different group of people with its own storyline and due to previous movies, people were familiar with the character, and therefore able to keep up with their powers without need for exposition on how they work.

[Arach Knight]

I'm not saying that this shouldn't be done, if this is another origin. But signs point to Peter already being Spidey in the movie, so him reacting to and trying to understand powers he obviously has come to grips with doesn't seem like a logical inclusion. Going back to Superman, we don't see Clark trying to study and explain his powers in Superman Returns. This doesn't include the web shooters, as I expect a flash back to explain them for the GA.


Actually, Superman Returns is not a reboot, so his powers are explained within the canon of the movie. In fact, the film makes frequent references to the previous Superman films (at least Superman and Superman II), including Lex's return to the Fortress. Even then, Lois re-explains Superman's powers while having a discussion with her husband, and there is a scene in which Superman flies toward the sun so that he can recharge his powers. To that end, there are three distinct ways in which the audience is informed about Superman's powers and their source.

[Spider-Who?]

Vague sequel..maybe. Even Bryan Singer didn't know what it was.

But that's a whole other chat. Back to the costume..are the shoes still silver? :eek:

no, they have been changed to these:

http://images.halloweencostumes.net/dinosaur-hands-feet.jpg

[Wolvieboy17]

Also, how do we know this reboot won't involve the origin? Did they confirm that? I haven't been following this film too closely.

[Spider-Who?]

Wait, so you're complaining about them cutting corners, but readily admit to not following the film?

[Rodrigo90]

Cant we all just agree that he can stick to walls with his feet,and there is absolutely NO solid explanation whatsoever?

[Wolvieboy17]

I didn't say hardly anything at all. If you jumped to a conclusion any harder you'd hit the ceiling. Christ, with an attitude like that you should be in the Cap forums.

I've followed all the news and articles I can find, I've just only browsed through the Spidey threads occasionally. I was under the impression it was a full reboot set in high school, with rumours of maybe college.

[Spider-Who?]

I haven't been following this film too closely.


I've followed all the news and articles I can find.

make up your mind.

[Wolvieboy17]

Make up my mind? Should I perhaps edit the wording in my previous posts like you just did to try and make myself look less silly?

And great selective reading. I know all the big announcements, casting, characters, i've seen set photos, posters etc. I have hardly been in the forums. I'm also starting to think that was a good decision too.

[itsleroy]

Also, how do we know this reboot won't involve the origin? Did they confirm that? I haven't been following this film too closely.

No we don't know whether there will be an origin story or not. Uncle Ben is in the story which could either mean we're getting an origin, or just show it through flashbacks. But Spider-Man being an enemy of NYC near the beginning of the film sort of contradicts the possibility of a origin again.

There's basically no information about this film thus far, Sony is being extremely secretive. Bit annoying.

But it builds up the hype! :cwink:

[Wolvieboy17]

Cool. Nice to get a real, non-douchey answer from someone. Thanks bro.

[Spider-Who?]

Make up my mind? Should I perhaps edit the wording in my previous posts like you just did to try and make myself look less silly?

I didn't edit your posts to make you look silly (they did that on their own :o). I took the two sentences that were contradictory and quoted them to show you what I was referring to. People can (quite easily) read your original posts.


And great selective reading. I know all the big announcements, casting, characters, i've seen set photos, posters etc. I have hardly been in the forums. I'm also starting to think that was a good decision too.

Because I have a differing opinion than you? I'm not being hostile. 90% of my posts with you has had no intent other then standard fan boy discussion. The 10% that was bemused was my comment about you complaining about cutting corners (you even made comment on how the sole issue was evidence that the film makers not caring about maintaining the film's "reality"); yet saying that you weren't following the film closely. How can you make such claims if you aren't following the film? Oh, but you ARE! Because you changed your mind when I made comment on it. :awesome:

[Spider-Who?]

Cool. Nice to get a real, non-douchey answer from someone. Thanks bro.
Really, dude?

[itsleroy]

:csad:

Let's all listen to "Why can't we be friends" by Smashmouth.

[Wolvieboy17]

Dude, I was talking about your posts. You edited your own post after i quoted it to make your harsh reaction to my question look more favourable. And it was a normal, and innocent question, which after being answered it turns out, was totally justified.

And i didn't change my mind, i've explained that 3 times now, i've looked at every post that has been on the hype front page and IGN etc, I just haven't been following whatever news I assumed was coming out in the forums, but it turns out after someone bothered to answer my question, I haven't missed much anyway.

Thats cool and all if you're not being intentionally hostile, but your posts have most definitely been coming across as douchey. If that's not your intention, we can change the tone of our convo right now. It's up to you.

[Spider-Who?]

Dude, I was talking about your posts. You edited your own post after i quoted it to make your harsh reaction to my question look more favourable. And it was a normal, and innocent question, which after being answered it turns out, was totally justified.

What? 1) there was no harsh reaction. 2) I didn't edit a thing in your post or mine. 3) If you quote a post of mine that I were to later edit, the original unedited post can still be seen in your quote. And my post in question was an honest, (yet amused) response to what appeared to be a contradiction on your part.

And i didn't change my mind, i've explained that 3 times now, i've looked at every post that has been on the hype front page and IGN etc, I just haven't been following whatever news I assumed was coming out in the forums, but it turns out after someone bothered to answer my question, I haven't missed much anyway.

See, instead of getting all defensive and start throwing insults, all you had to do was correct yourself and say "I'm sorry, I meant to say that I haven't been following the forums closely". And I'd be all like "ah, that explains it! lulz for poor expressing ones thoughts!" ...Something you didn't do adequately until just now.

Thats cool and all if you're not being intentionally hostile, but your posts have most definitely been coming across as douchey. If that's not your intention, we can change the tone of our convo right now. It's up to you.

Ha! And yet you continue. You're the one that's tossing around names and insults, wishing you'd come here less, or whatever your comment was that had to do with me. I think you just need to learn how to handle other people.

I'll tell you what, you apologize for calling me a douche, and we can be golden, like the color of perfectly baked biscuits.

[Spider-Who?]

:csad:

Let's all listen to "Why can't we be friends" by Smashmouth.
HA! When I was a kid and my brother and I got into a fight, my parents used to make us sing the Barney song. Good lord was that awful.

[Immortalfire]

I know why the shoes are silver lined. So he can fight werewolves..

....HOLY CRAP, Man-Wolf is going to be in the movie!!! :eek:


:woot:

[Wolvieboy17]

Now why would I apologise when you've shown absolutely no genuine interest in being pleasant at all?

See, instead of getting all defensive and start throwing insults, all you had to do was correct yourself and say "I'm sorry, I meant to say that I haven't been following the forums closely". And I'd be all like "ah, that explains it! lulz for poor expressing ones thoughts!"

Post 943. The very first reply. You ignored it. Post 941 was the one you edited. You can tell from my response that somethings changed.


For the record, I apologise for using the word douche, but I don't think it matters. My problem with you is still your attitude and you've shown nothing but smarminess. I think I can live without a golden, biscuit based friendship.

[Spider-Who?]

I know why the shoes are silver lined. So he can fight werewolves..

....HOLY CRAP, Man-Wolf is going to be in the movie!!! :eek:


:woot:
I think you're right. And if Man-Wolf is in the movie, then Morbius will certainly be in it too, because you just know they'll want to capitalize on the twilight craze!

[Immortalfire]

Hell yeah.

[Wolvieboy17]

Andrew Garfield already has the Robert Pattinson hair.

[Spider-Who?]

Now why would I apologise when you've shown absolutely no genuine interest in being pleasant at all?

I think the fact that I have yet to insult you, not been outwardly aggressive despite receiving plenty of both from you shows that I'm just here to have fun. If you consider me pointing out apparent contradictions, and joking around to be proof that all I want to do is make your time here a living hell, well....there isn't much I can do to help you there.

Post 943. The very first reply. You ignored it. Post 941 was the one you edited. You can tell from my response that somethings changed.

No, that's when the apparent contradiction arose (I even quoted it to show you were I was confused by it). There's a difference between following a movie's news and going to a forum to discuss the news. You post, 951, is when you express how you consider the two to be one in the same, which clears up the issue just fine. Had you said THAT from the get go, instead of lashing out, we might be enjoyed freshly baked southern yum yums right now.

For the record, I apologise for using the word douche

I forgive you. :fhm:

My problem with you is still your attitude and you've shown nothing but smarminess.

Up until you began insulting me (the first one, I consider being the one where you say I should be in the Cap forums since I jump to conclusions so outrageously), I thought we were having a pleasant (if not merry-go-round style) conversation. But upon your hostility, I've seen no reason to be after-school-special polite. But even still, I'm not being anything other than pleasant, if not slightly sarcastic in a non hostile nor insulting way.

I think I can live without a golden, biscuit based friendship.

Good. When it comes to warm, flaky golden-brown biscuits, I'm a vacuum and would surely not have left any for you anyway. Those little bastards are my kryptonite.

mmmm....now if you'll excuse me, I believe it's lunch time.

[Immortalfire]

Mmm...biscuits.

[Spider-Who?]

Andrew Garfield already has the Robert Pattinson hair.

:barf:

[Wolvieboy17]

Well it's funny how people are different. You find the word douche insulting, I happen to find smarmy sarcastic passive aggressiveness insulting. Tit for tat.

Now lets end this crap because the thought of having to dig through any earlier posts again makes me want to vomit blood. You've succeeded in hurting my brain.

[Spider-Who?]

Well it's funny how people are different. You find the word douche insulting, I happen to find smarmy sarcastic passive aggressiveness insulting. Tit for tat.

Now lets end this crap because the thought of having to dig through any earlier posts again makes me want to vomit blood. You've succeeded in hurting my brain.

rX7wtNOkuHo

[Wolvieboy17]

Wait, my mistake. That's not passive aggressive at all.

[Spider-Who?]

haha, no not at all. Found that this morning and was just looking for a stupid reason to use it.

[Mrpaul]

Is it the shoes?

[Alex The Great]

Andrew Garfield already has the Robert Pattinson hair.
Jesus ****ing Christ, this **** again? ENOUGH :doh:

[Troy_Parker]

Guys chill.


Marc Webb has got this **** under control.

[The Riddler]

just tremendously unappealing.

what a lame suit.

[Wolvieboy17]

Jesus ****ing Christ, this **** again? ENOUGH

That is literally the first time i've ever posted that or made that comment anywhere in the hype. And it was a joke. Chill out bro.

[Immortalfire]

Alex, I told you not to forget your valium today.

[Arach Knight]

It's hair. There is no reason to rage over it.

[roach]

raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage

[Spidey_62]

raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage

http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/6543/98875335.png

[Troy_Parker]

Ffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Milu]

fCVHpnixj88

[NinjaTurtleFan]

These are the shoes... I think.http://c181321.r21.cf0.rackcdn.com/PHAqcMeYkHl0DH_1_m.jpg

God those are gay. This is Spider-Man, not some NBA player. Seriously, what is he trying out for the local track team? While the casting hasn't been bad for this movie, if that suit doesn't impress me in a trailer or the movie itself, like it isn't right now, then they better change it back to the old suit in the sequel because I won't be the only fanboy going :doh::facepalm::confused::mad::down all in a row.

[Sam Fisher]

God those are gay. This is Spider-Man, not some NBA player. Seriously, what is he trying out for the local track team? While the casting hasn't been bad for this movie, if that suit doesn't impress me in a trailer or the movie itself, like it isn't right now, then they better change it back to the old suit in the sequel because I won't be the only fanboy going :doh::facepalm::confused::mad::down all in a row.
Are you saying Spidey isn't teaming up with Micheal Jordon in this?

[Wolvieboy17]

Honestly, if they sell it well enough, I don't care. I've never been against deviations from the comic, be it aesthetic or narrative based, as long as the character FEELS true and it overall works.

[Troy_Parker]

Do people actually think he's wearing those shoes?

[Rodrigo90]

Well to me,it looks like he's got a pair of old trainers,and integrated them with his suit. Makes 'realistic' sense,I guess.

[Mercurius]

Honestly, if they sell it well enough, I don't care. I've never been against deviations from the comic, be it aesthetic or narrative based, as long as the character FEELS true and it overall works.


Well, it's exactly because of this flagrant impossibility, i.e., to make it "aesthetic or narrative based, as long as the character FEELS true and it overall works" that people are complaining.

It's merely contrived, and to create a new line of products and to establish a superficial difference in relation to the Raimi's movies.

It's ugly, it's annoying, and it has no good reason to be so. It's bad, Wolviebuddy, really bad.

[LegendaryCaleb]

But yet at the end of the day it's just shoes...shoes that we've discussed for months now...
:dry:

[socool]

Well, it's exactly because of this flagrant impossibility, i.e., to make it "aesthetic or narrative based, as long as the character FEELS true and it overall works" that people are complaining.

It's merely contrived, and to create a new line of products and to establish a superficial difference in relation to the Raimi's movies.

It's ugly, it's annoying, and it has no good reason to be so. It's bad, Wolviebuddy, really bad.

I have to agree with the bold. The silver is freakin stupid.

But yet at the end of the day it's just shoes...shoes that we've discussed for months now...
:dry:


Yeah, I wish we would change the subject...despite the fact I continued it above...

[NinjaCarm]

God those are gay. This is Spider-Man, not some NBA player. Seriously, what is he trying out for the local track team? While the casting hasn't been bad for this movie, if that suit doesn't impress me in a trailer or the movie itself, like it isn't right now, then they better change it back to the old suit in the sequel because I won't be the only fanboy going :doh::facepalm::confused::mad::down all in a row.

That last line made me l:awesome:aug:woot:h

[El Payaso]

Well, it's exactly because of this flagrant impossibility, i.e., to make it "aesthetic or narrative based, as long as the character FEELS true and it overall works" that people are complaining.

It's merely contrived, and to create a new line of products and to establish a superficial difference in relation to the Raimi's movies.

It's ugly, it's annoying, and it has no good reason to be so. It's bad, Wolviebuddy, really bad.

I could stand some serious changes but if at least they had some good reason to be there. As you say, this is just screwing the suit up for the sake of it.

[Alchemyst]

I could stand some serious changes but if at least they had some good reason to be there. As you say, this is just screwing the suit up for the sake of it.

I look at this suit as being a highly stylized version of Spider-Man's suit. Just like in the comics, different artist have different interpretations of Spidey, the same goes with film. In all honesty, this version of Spider-Man still has all the key features that make him identifiable, the little tweaks made here and there are not taking anything away from the character altogether.

[Infinity9999x]

I could stand some serious changes but if at least they had some good reason to be there. As you say, this is just screwing the suit up for the sake of it.

That's the only complaint I have of the changes. And to be honest, I don't think they're that bad. And if the movie is good, my gripes will matter even less.

But I do feel that, if they wanted to change the suit simply for the sake of change (and to reinforce that, yes, this IS different from the Raimi films) why not go with an already established design?

Ben Reily/Spider-girl's design is an outfit that retains the classic Spider-man look, and happens to be a design that most fans like. This suit actually has a bit of that vibe going on, but with a few random additions that are just kind of odd. Why not just make it the Ben design? I wouldn't have minded that at all.

[Arach Knight]

Honestly, I am over the shoes issue. There could be far worse things going on. Has anyone seen "Evening with Kevin Smith"? If so, there is a part where he talks about Jon Peter's rendition of Superman? All black suit, no cape, no flying. Those kinds of changes ruin the traditional aesthetic. The silver shoes (which may or may not be for stunt work only) are comparably no where near as terrible. Heck, remember Bat nipples? Or the Bat credit card? Silver shoes won't make or break the costume. To be fair though, people are entitled to their opinion, but you may miss the forest for the trees if you allow the shoes to ruin your entire outlook on this film project.

[craigdbfan]

fCVHpnixj88

:lmao:

Thats how it feels a lot of the time in this thread. :hehe:

[Wolvieboy17]

Well, it's exactly because of this flagrant impossibility, i.e., to make it "aesthetic or narrative based, as long as the character FEELS true and it overall works" that people are complaining.

It's merely contrived, and to create a new line of products and to establish a superficial difference in relation to the Raimi's movies.

It's ugly, it's annoying, and it has no good reason to be so. It's bad, Wolviebuddy, really bad.

But who cares if the movie is good? You could make that judgement of a movie like TDK before actually seeing it, with the difference in portrayal of Joker and the costume and the Batmobile. As far as judging how 'true' in heart and spirit to the comic the film actually is, we have to actually see the movie first. And if it accomplishes that, I'll be thrilled. If Spidey is every bit the smart, switched on, smack talking and funny character i've loved for years (and who was absent from the Raimi movies) then i'd take not only silver shoes but a Silver V shaped space suit.

[©KAW]

But who cares if the movie is good? You could make that judgement of a movie like TDK before actually seeing it, with the difference in portrayal of Joker and the costume and the Batmobile. As far as judging how 'true' in heart and spirit to the comic the film actually is, we have to actually see the movie first. And if it accomplishes that, I'll be thrilled. If Spidey is every bit the smart, switched on, smack talking and funny character i've loved for years (and who was absent from the Raimi movies) then i'd take not only silver shoes but a Silver V shaped space suit.This is true, not only for The Dark Knight, but for Thor and Captain America, as well. Dark Knight with its suit being 95% changed from his classic blue/gray is now the comic book movie to beat, not Spider-Man or Fantastic Four--both donning very close to the original costumes.

[NinjaCarm]

They're soles! It makes sense!

Relax!

[Alchemyst]

lol all this talk about his boots is hilarious. I can only imagine the camera panning Spider-Man from his boots up and people booing when they see them.

[Hurm...]

I can imagine the opening action scene for the film just being from the shoes' point of view.

[©KAW]

Now that's the funny.

[Darkness Falls]

lol all this talk about his boots is hilarious. I can only imagine the camera panning Spider-Man from his boots up and people booing when they see them.

=8DYje57V_BY

[Mace Bloodstone]

lol all this talk about his boots is hilarious. I can only imagine the camera panning Spider-Man from his boots up and people booing when they see them.


Walking out in protest :hehe:

[Arach Knight]

Walking out in protest :hehe:

Careful, cos those boots are made for walking. and they'll walk all over you.

[Arach Knight]

Walking out in protest :hehe:

Careful about walking out because of the boots. Those boots are made for walking. And they'll walk all over you.