Whose costume is better? - Part 1

[roach]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Considering the uproar that was generated by Spidey 3... And I'll say no more

well considering the uproar for:
Power ranger goblin
organic webbing
Mj being first
redeemable Doc Ock
+
Spider-man 3

or maybe people just didn't like Raimi directing Spider-man

[UltimateWebhead]

Originally Posted by roach

or maybe people just didn't like Raimi directing Spider-man

When he was announced to be the director for Spider-man, I'll admit it seemed to be an odd choice. I'm sure his Spidey fanatacism won over the execs. He sure can deliver a great action scene though.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Okay, Urine Yellow. It doesn't match the costume and is another striking example of how garish the design is. The lenses being yellow offer no better reflectivity than if they were silver.

Oh, you got me there....you're a funny one now, aren't you? You see what he did there folks? He made fun of the lenses....AGAIN. Oh. My. God. He's ****ing hysterical!!!! I can't ****ing help myself. Good grief; keep it up...my sides are splitting.



The yellow lenses are different, but it's a difference that I rather like. If you take a gander at some TAS-M pictures, you'll see that those lenses are much more reflective than anywhere in Raimi's trilogy. If it needs to be a different color to be reflective, or just a change just for the sake...I do not mind.

They aren't comic-accurate. They're just more round than Raimi's. They still don't have the distinctive "fish-shape" as the comic lenses.

The shape is different, but....black is black. And better than silver in this case.

The Raimi suit, without the overly bright colors looked great enough on film to be voted the BEST comic-to-film translation ever. This suit will never rate that type of distinction. It doesn't change the fact that Webb is about change for its own sake. And from what I've heard about the story itself, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

Again you bring up the changes. I agree, some parts, such as the leg stripes were changes just for the sake, but it's something I've looked past months ago because there are more pros with the suit than cons. And the vibrant colors is one of the pros. MUCH more vibrant than Raimi's.

And....the best one? Is there a poll to justify this or are you just saying that?

Originally Posted by Dragon

Considering the uproar that was generated by Spidey 3... And I'll say no more

I'll keep my fullest judgment on that aspect until the movie comes out.

If it fits with the story and makes sense, then fine. I'd rather they do that then give us a movie with under-developed villains and boring characters that WEREN'T that boring in the earlier installments.

[roach]

um who was underdeveloped

[Anno_Domini]

Eddie Brock mostly because he only became an "important" player in the last thirty minutes or so.

And...then you have Sandman; not really under-developed, but his storyline of trying to cure Penny went nowhere.

[Spider-Aziz]

As far as Penny's story, I think it's better they did it they way they did, can't give a happy ending for everything, and I don't want more tears added, or a cheesy "HER FATHER MANAGED TO FIND HER TREATMENT" just for the sake of it

[Anno_Domini]

The way they did it? By showing Penny was sick and having Flint steal money for NO REASON in the film. There isn't a storyline about Flint stealing money for a doctor. It only looks like he's stealing it for himself even with his whole "my daughter is all I have left" shtick. The film made it only look like Penny was Flint's excuse and he was taking money for himself. And you were fine with that? Hah.

[roach]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Eddie Brock mostly because he only became an "important" player in the last thirty minutes or so.

And...then you have Sandman; not really under-developed, but his storyline of trying to cure Penny went nowhere.

Eddie Brock wasn't underdeveloped....Venom is just a one note character

[Spider-Aziz]

Originally Posted by roach

Eddie Brock wasn't underdeveloped....Venom is just a one note character

Well said

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Oh, you got me there....you're a funny one now, aren't you? You see what he did there folks? He made fun of the lenses....AGAIN. Oh. My. God. He's ****ing hysterical!!!! I can't ****ing help myself. Good grief; keep it up...my sides are splitting.

Touched a nerve, did I?

The yellow lenses are different, but it's a difference that I rather like. If you take a gander at some TAS-M pictures, you'll see that those lenses are much more reflective than anywhere in Raimi's trilogy. If it needs to be a different color to be reflective, or just a change just for the sake...I do not mind.

In Raimi's case, you regard any changes as being blasphemous- but in Webb's any changes are okay. So we have to take it that it isn't the changes that bother you- but who's making the changes.

The shape is different, but....black is black. And better than silver in this case.

You're right- black is black- and the lense frames on Tobey's suit are black- clearly distinguished from the silver webbing.

Again you bring up the changes. I agree, some parts, such as the leg stripes were changes just for the sake, but it's something I've looked past months ago because there are more pros with the suit than cons. And the vibrant colors is one of the pros. MUCH more vibrant than Raimi's.

And....the best one? Is there a poll to justify this or are you just saying that?

http://screenrant.com/best-worst-sup...s-pauly-54822/

http://www.craveonline.com/film/arti...rhero-costumes

http://www.complex.com/style/2011/07...hero-movies#25

There are a number of others, but... You get the point.

I'll keep my fullest judgment on that aspect until the movie comes out.

If it fits with the story and makes sense, then fine. I'd rather they do that then give us a movie with under-developed villains and boring characters that WEREN'T that boring in the earlier installments.

I don't know what or who you're refering to here.

The way they did it? By showing Penny was sick and having Flint steal money for NO REASON in the film. There isn't a storyline about Flint stealing money for a doctor. It only looks like he's stealing it for himself even with his whole "my daughter is all I have left" shtick. The film made it only look like Penny was Flint's excuse and he was taking money for himself. And you were fine with that? Hah.

You're the only person who's ever walked away with that interpretation.

[roach]

Originally Posted by Dragon

In Raimi's case, you regard any changes as being blasphemous- but in Webb's any changes are okay. So we have to take it that it isn't the changes that bother you- but who's making the changes.

this is what bothers me about the whole thing. It seems that some people are hypocritical.
They blast the Raimi suit for raised webbing but then praise the Webb suit.
They blast the organic webbing but seem ok with the idea of the Ang Lee origin( we don't know if its true which is why I say the idea of it).

[Abudefduf]

Originally Posted by roach

They blast the organic webbing but seem ok with the idea of the Ang Lee origin( we don't know if its true which is why I say the idea of it).

Because Peter building web-shooters is what makes him THE Spider-man. Nobody else would've been able to invent them.
Organic webshooters? Every random dude bitten by that spider would've got them and would have become a Spider-man.

"Ang Lee origins" do not change the fact that he's the one who choses to be a hero.

And to stay on topic, Raimi's costume, while not perfect, is obviously the better one. Not that I don't like the new one.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by roach

Eddie Brock wasn't underdeveloped....Venom is just a one note character

Eddie was definitely under developed and only became a prominent character in the last thirty minutes only because he became a villain. He wasn't used enough to understand the character.

Originally Posted by Dragon

Touched a nerve, did I?

Perhaps you touched a nerve right now because you don't seem to "get" sarcasm.

In Raimi's case, you regard any changes as being blasphemous- but in Webb's any changes are okay. So we have to take it that it isn't the changes that bother you- but who's making the changes.

No...it's the fact that the things that made Raimi's suit terrible were made up with Webb's suit. I said Webb's suit has mistakes itself, but I can say Webb made up for the mistakes on Raimi's suit that I hated. I'm sure the next suit will make up for Raimi's suit as Webb did as well as make up for Webb's mistakes such as everything below the waist.

You're right- black is black- and the lense frames on Tobey's suit are black- clearly distinguished from the silver webbing.

You must be blind...that's silver around the lenses, not black.

http://screenrant.com/best-worst-sup...s-pauly-54822/

http://www.craveonline.com/film/arti...rhero-costumes

http://www.complex.com/style/2011/07...hero-movies#25

There are a number of others, but... You get the point.

Hrm. Wasn't aware the suit beat out the likes of Batman Begins or even Superman. That's shocking.

I don't know what or who you're refering to here.

Whatever the new origin is, I will be fine with it if only the movie itself has a great story. I was comparing it to Spider-Man 3 when the entire cast felt lackluster with their own arcs with the movie as well as the villains since you said people complained about S-M 3 so much.

You're the only person who's ever walked away with that interpretation.

I'm the only one with common sense? Thanks for that compliment

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Eddie was definitely under developed and only became a prominent character in the last thirty minutes only because he became a villain. He wasn't used enough to understand the character.

The character was extremely easy to understand. Cookie-cutter in fact. That's the great weakness of Venom as a character. He's far too simplistic. He's nothing more than a visual. And if anything, Raimi improved the character by giving him a better motivation than the comics. At least in the film, Peter directly affected Eddie's life (Although in reality, Eddie ruined it himself). In the comics Spidey is no more responsible than anyone else. Comic book Eddie should have been after the police, the judge and jury, everyone on the Bugle staff, etc. Singling out Spidey was pretty silly.

Perhaps you touched a nerve right now because you don't seem to "get" sarcasm.

No, I recognized the attempt at sarcasm. That you extended it so long suggests that you were a little more ticked-off than you should have been.

No...it's the fact that the things that made Raimi's suit terrible were made up with Webb's suit. I said Webb's suit has mistakes itself, but I can say Webb made up for the mistakes on Raimi's suit that I hated. I'm sure the next suit will make up for Raimi's suit as Webb did as well as make up for Webb's mistakes such as everything below the waist.

Webb's suit makes up for "mistakes" on Raimi's suit? So, you're so sensitive to color that a darker shade of blue causes you pain? Raised silver webbing is a terrible thing- but the etched in, dirty sloppy webbing is acceptable (Even though it's a bigger departure from the comics than Raimi's). Silver lenses are closer to the comics than uh-hem- Yellow lenses, but that's an improvement. So I guess Steve Ditko also got it wrong. The missing waistband, the patches of blue in the gloves- the racing stripes down his legs- and the fact that he's wearing running shoes, which would make it impossible for him to climb walls- all of that is more acceptable than raised silver webbing and lenses of a slightly different shape- the only alterations Raimi made from the comics. Makes sense. (That's sarcasm )

You must be blind...that's silver around the lenses, not black.

So you can't distinguish the black frames from the silver webbing? Time for new glasses.

Hrm. Wasn't aware the suit beat out the likes of Batman Begins or even Superman. That's shocking.

Not at all. Always go with a classic.

Whatever the new origin is, I will be fine with it if only the movie itself has a great story. I was comparing it to Spider-Man 3 when the entire cast felt lackluster with their own arcs with the movie as well as the villains since you said people complained about S-M 3 so much.

That's not what I was referring to regarding Spidey 3. There was a major outcry from fans when a certain plotpoint was revealed in 3, because it was a departure from Spidey's mythos. Rumor has it that Amazing will blow that plotpoint out of the water. And the suggested changes do nothing to make Spider-Man's story any better. In fact they just make him more of the same as other characters (The loss of his parents, that he might have been experimented on as a child )

There was plenty of good things about Spidey 3, including perhaps the best performances from Tobey Maguire and James Franco of the series. It certainly showed a wider range than the first two films.

I'm the only one with common sense? Thanks for that compliment

If you're the only one, then it isn't common sense. I could offer theories, but that would be for another forum..

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Dragon

The character was extremely easy to understand. Cookie-cutter in fact. That's the great weakness of Venom as a character. He's far too simplistic. He's nothing more than a visual. And if anything, Raimi improved the character by giving him a better motivation than the comics. At least in the film, Peter directly affected Eddie's life (Although in reality, Eddie ruined it himself). In the comics Spidey is no more responsible than anyone else. Comic book Eddie should have been after the police, the judge and jury, everyone on the Bugle staff, etc. Singling out Spidey was pretty silly.

Eddie's "history" with Gwen needed more depth, the fact that Eddie tried to pretend to be a "player" needed more depth. When I say he was under-developed, I am referring to the story Sam Raimi wrote for Eddie Brock, and it went to no good. The film could've been just fine without the Eddie/Gwen plot because it went nowhere. THAT'S what I am referring to. Raimi's addition of Eddie was just useless and didn't do anything to Eddie except make him even less interesting. I get the idea that some people think Eddie's reasons of being angry at Peter were better in the movie, but that was pretty much it to how S-M 3's Eddie was better than in the comics or any cartoons.

Plus...him asking God to kill Peter. Just....

dumb.

No, I recognized the attempt at sarcasm. That you extended it so long suggests that you were a little more ticked-off than you should have been.

How cute that you think something as silly as a forum discussion would get me angry.

It's all good...in the end, I will just think my opinions are superior, and I'm sure in the end you will think your opinions are superior. It's the same if a Democrat or Republican had a debate...they will talk and give their sides, but secretly they will believe they were right and always will be

Webb's suit makes up for "mistakes" on Raimi's suit? So, you're so sensitive to color that a darker shade of blue causes you pain? Raised silver webbing is a terrible thing- but the etched in, dirty sloppy webbing is acceptable (Even though it's a bigger departure from the comics than Raimi's). Silver lenses are closer to the comics than uh-hem- Yellow lenses, but that's an improvement. So I guess Steve Ditko also got it wrong. The missing waistband, the patches of blue in the gloves- the racing stripes down his legs- and the fact that he's wearing running shoes, which would make it impossible for him to climb walls- all of that is more acceptable than raised silver webbing and lenses of a slightly different shape- the only alterations Raimi made from the comics. Makes sense. (That's sarcasm )

To sum all of this up...yes, Marc Webb's suit made up for Sam Raimi's mistakes on his suit.

I'm sure you will continue on with your rant on how it's silly that I prefer Webb's suit, but...it's all good

So you can't distinguish the black frames from the silver webbing? Time for new glasses.

Apparently you can't distinguish that they're BOTH silver. The black you see? It's called a shadow. Look closer at the pictures of Raimi's suit.

Not at all. Always go with a classic.

And...Superman's suit is more of a classic than Raimi's Spidey suit.

That's not what I was referring to regarding Spidey 3. There was a major outcry from fans when a certain plotpoint was revealed in 3, because it was a departure from Spidey's mythos. Rumor has it that Amazing will blow that plotpoint out of the water. And the suggested changes do nothing to make Spider-Man's story any better. In fact they just make him more of the same as other characters (The loss of his parents, that he might have been experimented on as a child )

You're referring to Flint being the actual killer, am I correct? I think I have more of a problem that it caused a retcon than Flint actually being the killer. If Flint Marko was the killer in the first movie and sent to prison and then turned into Sandman in the third film, I would not have complained so much...as long as it feels decent such as Black Cat's father being the killer in TSSM, I would be fine with it.

There was plenty of good things about Spidey 3, including perhaps the best performances from Tobey Maguire and James Franco of the series. It certainly showed a wider range than the first two films.

I'm a fan of James Franco and I like his portrayal as Harry in all three films, but for the both of them, or any of the main characters of the trilogy...they all had better performances in Spider-Man 2, not 3. Of course, imo.

If you're the only one, then it isn't common sense. I could offer theories, but that would be for another forum..

No, no...it's common sense and a compliment from you.

So thanks bro!

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Eddie's "history" with Gwen needed more depth, the fact that Eddie tried to pretend to be a "player" needed more depth.

No it didn't, because the very point was that there was no history with Eddie and Gwen. Eddie only imagined it, as did he imagine himself a player.
That was made crystal clear.

When I say he was under-developed, I am referring to the story Sam Raimi wrote for Eddie Brock, and it went to no good. The film could've been just fine without the Eddie/Gwen plot because it went nowhere. THAT'S what I am referring to. Raimi's addition of Eddie was just useless and didn't do anything to Eddie except make him even less interesting. I get the idea that some people think Eddie's reasons of being angry at Peter were better in the movie, but that was pretty much it to how S-M 3's Eddie was better than in the comics or any cartoons.

Plus...him asking God to kill Peter. Just....

dumb.

First off, Raimi didn't want to add Eddie/Venom to the story. His hand was forced. But that being said, Raimi did a pretty good job with so little time to work with. Eddie's character, was, again, the cookie-cutter self-centered, sociopath. He imagines himself to be more important than he really is, cooler than he really is (Thus the Gwen/player delusion) and when his flaws are exposed, he becomes child-like and asks for the ridiculous, like for God to kill Peter. And when he's granted power, he merely becomes destructive. It was a problem that the comics writers dragged that out for so long, not that Raimi condensed it. In the comics it would've been so easy for Spidey to end the threat of Venom, but TPTB rendered him a moron whenever he dealt with Venom, simply to keep the story running endlessly. Raimi also was smart enough to make Eddie a mirror image to Peter, thus why he presented the Gwen dynamic and made Eddie a photographer rather than a reporter.

To sum all of this up...yes, Marc Webb's suit made up for Sam Raimi's mistakes on his suit.

I'm sure you will continue on with your rant on how it's silly that I prefer Webb's suit, but...it's all good

There were no mistakes on Raimi's suit. Again- Best comic-to-movie translation EVER.

Apparently you can't distinguish that they're BOTH silver. The black you see? It's called a shadow. Look closer at the pictures of Raimi's suit.

If it were a shadow- then the silver webbing would also appear to be black- which it clearly doesn't. The lens frames and the spider are black and stand out from the silver webbing.

And...Superman's suit is more of a classic than Raimi's Spidey suit.

No. Superman's costume is classic because it's the first superhero costume. It looked great on Chris Reeve and most others who wore it. But Spidey's costume design is superior, and Raimi's translation was perfectly handled. Marc Webb's design makes that fact even more evident. Recently interviewed, Stan Lee mentioned specifically how much he loved TOBEY as Spider-Man. Nothing about the Webb suit.

You're referring to Flint being the actual killer, am I correct? I think I have more of a problem that it caused a retcon than Flint actually being the killer. If Flint Marko was the killer in the first movie and sent to prison and then turned into Sandman in the third film, I would not have complained so much...as long as it feels decent such as Black Cat's father being the killer in TSSM, I would be fine with it.

Flint being the killer wasn't a retcon. A retcon is when we're told something we saw didn't happen (e.g. Peter and M.J.'s wedding) or something happened that was impossible based on what we've seen (e.g. Gwen having given birth to Osborn's children). In Spidey 1 we didn't actually see who shot Ben, and only assumed it was the robber Peter chased down.

But the uproar was about how Marko being the killer changed Peter's motivations (I didn't think it would). But Webb has potentially completely altered the scenario and screwed the logic behind Peter's choice.

I'm a fan of James Franco and I like his portrayal as Harry in all three films, but for the both of them, or any of the main characters of the trilogy...they all had better performances in Spider-Man 2, not 3. Of course, imo.

I think they gave excellent performances in each film. But there was more depth in 3. Peter went through a gambit of emotions that he didn't in 2. And Tobey showed his comic ability in 3 that he wasn't allowed to do in 1 & 2. Franco was also able to show his villainy and comedic ability. 2 was the better film, but 3 had alot of interesting things. Had Raimi been able to make the film he wanted, it could've been great.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Dragon

No it didn't, because the very point was that there was no history with Eddie and Gwen. Eddie only imagined it, as did he imagine himself a player.
That was made crystal clear.

If that's the case...Gwen Stacy was a character that wasn't even needed. She was only important in the jazz club scene and that could've been any other woman. So another character that was useless; awesome.

First off, Raimi didn't want to add Eddie/Venom to the story. His hand was forced. But that being said, Raimi did a pretty good job with so little time to work with. Eddie's character, was, again, the cookie-cutter self-centered, sociopath. He imagines himself to be more important than he really is, cooler than he really is (Thus the Gwen/player delusion) and when his flaws are exposed, he becomes child-like and asks for the ridiculous, like for God to kill Peter. And when he's granted power, he merely becomes destructive. It was a problem that the comics writers dragged that out for so long, not that Raimi condensed it. In the comics it would've been so easy for Spidey to end the threat of Venom, but TPTB rendered him a moron whenever he dealt with Venom, simply to keep the story running endlessly. Raimi also was smart enough to make Eddie a mirror image to Peter, thus why he presented the Gwen dynamic and made Eddie a photographer rather than a reporter.

I am aware of Raimi being forced to use Venom, but still...you can say you LIKED it when Eddie actually asked God to kill Peter? That was just idiotic. Even if child-like reasoning of Eddie doing this, at least word it better to make it sound less hysterical, such as "Give me the power to kill Peter" and then run into the symbiote.

There were no mistakes on Raimi's suit. Again- Best comic-to-movie translation EVER.

Nope, there were mistakes.

If it were a shadow- then the silver webbing would also appear to be black- which it clearly doesn't. The lens frames and the spider are black and stand out from the silver webbing.

THIS is black


THIS is silver


The silver on the logo and frames are just a darker variation of silver, but definitely NOT black.

Flint being the killer wasn't a retcon. A retcon is when we're told something we saw didn't happen (e.g. Peter and M.J.'s wedding) or something happened that was impossible based on what we've seen (e.g. Gwen having given birth to Osborn's children). In Spidey 1 we didn't actually see who shot Ben, and only assumed it was the robber Peter chased down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon

Look up the types...'Addition'. A...retcon

I think they gave excellent performances in each film. But there was more depth in 3. Peter went through a gambit of emotions that he didn't in 2. And Tobey showed his comic ability in 3 that he wasn't allowed to do in 1 & 2. Franco was also able to show his villainy and comedic ability. 2 was the better film, but 3 had alot of interesting things. Had Raimi been able to make the film he wanted, it could've been great.

I don't agree on the performances for 3. I can't find anything that was great in that film.

[Lead Cenobite]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

Looks more like the comics than Donner's Superman and Raimi's Spider-Man.

Are you sure you aren't just saying that because you are used to Iron Man's suit changing in the comics? I mean, the Superman and Spider-Man suits have been much more consistent over the years and the Donner and Raimi suits got all the details and overall look down pat. I doubt the Iron Man movie suits look like any specific version in the comics.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

If that's the case...Gwen Stacy was a character that wasn't even needed. She was only important in the jazz club scene and that could've been any other woman. So another character that was useless; awesome.

Raimi said that originally it wasn't Gwen in the script. There was a character that created friction between Peter and MJ, and Laura Ziskin suggested it should be Gwen. Then with the addition of Venom/Brock, the dynamic of Eddie being in love with her was added.

I am aware of Raimi being forced to use Venom, but still...you can say you LIKED it when Eddie actually asked God to kill Peter? That was just idiotic. Even if child-like reasoning of Eddie doing this, at least word it better to make it sound less hysterical, such as "Give me the power to kill Peter" and then run into the symbiote.

It's not a point of "like". It was true to the character. At that point Eddie was reduced to a child-like state because his ego was crushed. And so his desires were also child-like. It's like the scene in Silence of the Lambs when the girl in the well started crying and asking for her mommy. Desperate people often get reduced to childish babbling. It would have been far more unrealistic for Brock to go into some thoughtful brooding monologue about his place in the universe and a plea for power.

Nope, there were mistakes.

Raimi translated the costume from the comics and made it look good in the 3 dimensional world. Something that hadn't thus far been done. If the only complaints you can muster are raised silver webbing (Which many people liked) the shape of the lenses (Which many people had no problem with) and the shades of blue and red chosen then you got nothing to complain about.

THIS is black


THIS is silver


The silver on the logo and frames are just a darker variation of silver, but definitely NOT black.

You're actually comparing a painting to a photograph? You are aware that when light reflects off of a flat black it gives a grayish color in the highlights, right? Not to mention that the painting you're comparing painted the silver webs, black as well. The real difference is that the frames on Webb's suit are shinier and more reflective.

And regarding the vibrancy of color on the Webb suit:



It's all in the lighting and color correction. Looks kinda dull here (No adjustments by me).

Look up the types...'Addition'. A...retcon

Firstly, muh friend- that article is b***s***. The first retcon wasn't in 1983's All Star Squadron. Stan the Man made a retcon much earlier. In ASM #47 May 1967 we're shown that the Green Goblin hired Kraven to take out Spidey in ASM #34 Apr 1966- even though in #34 there isn't a hint of the Goblin's being there. No shadowy figure in the background- No secret meetings with Kraven- nothin'.

Secondly, I didn't say retcons weren't additions. In fact they're pretty much nothing but additions or subtractions. I said that simply because we didn't see something happen, as with Ben's shooting- it doesn't translate to a retcon. Marko certainly could have shot Ben.

I don't agree on the performances for 3. I can't find anything that was great in that film.

Again, dude- it seems that you can't find anything because you choose not to. 3 was without question very flawed. But there was still lots to enjoy.

[Troy_Parker]

Originally Posted by Dragon

And regarding the vibrancy of color on the Webb suit:

To just jump in for a sec, that's a clearly edited picture.

Here's what that looked like before it was lightened up.



And here's what it looks like in the movie.



The red seems a little more pinkish in the movie.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Troy_Parker

To just jump in for a sec, that's a clearly edited picture.

Here's what that looked like before it was lightened up.

No, that's what it looked like after it was darkened. You don't get those kinds of blacks from a camera. And if the above pick was lightened, you wouldn't have all of the detail seen there, that disappears in the darkened photo.

[Troy_Parker]

Let me rephrase what I said.

"This is what the suit is supposed to look like:"

And anyways, the suit's colours don't look anything like the picture you posted, even before the filters/colour correction, etc:

[Anno_Domini]

No use Troy. Dragon thinks he's right about everything, when he's not

[Majik1387]

Originally Posted by Dragon

No, that's what it looked like after it was darkened. You don't get those kinds of blacks from a camera. And if the above pick was lightened, you wouldn't have all of the detail seen there, that disappears in the darkened photo.

Despite you thinking that it's darkened there, the trailer clearly shows Spidey looking like this picture than your brightened one.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

Despite you thinking that it's darkened there, the trailer clearly shows Spidey looking like this picture than your brightened one.

Yeah.. There's a technology developed way back in the 20th Century called COLOR CORRECTION. It's like Photoshop for movies