The Amazing Spider-Man Keep the ORGANICS or WEB SHOOTERS???!!!!

[Young Superman]

Organic Web-shooters

 

[Dangerous]

Yes but will the "Joe Public" cinemagoer pay attention to such detail as whether Spider-Man has synthetic webbing or not? There are more effective ways of making a character more noticeable than …blab blah

Like I said, they will want to do –EVERYTHING- they can to distinguish this new film from the Noughties series. That will include changing smaller but significant stuff such as scraping the organics and pleasing the fans and going with webshooters.
It’s easy to understand.

The films do not need to re-create such detail as artificial web-shooters in order to please hardcore fans.

I’m a hardcore fan and it would certainly please me and be one improvement over the Noughties films, to go along with the other stuff that needs to be corrected from the Noughties films.

The major criticism of the previous films (to which the studio should pay attention) is how the villains were portrayed (especially in the cluttered third film), the lack of Spider-Man's humourous persona and how Mary Jane-Watson was rather insipid. These are the sort of pressing concerns in which to address. Not whether he dedicated some of his time to creating web-formula.

That’s your version.

This thread is about the webshooters.
If you want to talk about that other stuff there are plenty of threads.
THIS ONE is about the issue of mechs vs organics.

Me, and PLENTY of other Spider-fans (see poll results ) would prefer web shooters in the new film, along with all that other stuff that needs correcting being fixed. To me the webshooters are just as important as making Spidey a wise ass, or getting MJ’s character right this time because the mechs are a subtle yet crucial part of who Spider-Man is.

Like I have previously explained,- it is a cool visual metaphor for his scientific prowess AND think of all the classic fights & scary moments he has had in the comics because of either running out of webbing or something happening to his webshooters that screwed them up. Wait; don’t tell me, you don’t read the comics? Heheh,

The "no brainer" reasons to which you referred are inconsequential.

Inconsequential in your estimation, the popular fan consensus and poll results appear to say something different tho.

I cannot imagine anyone requiring such detail as artificial webbing to understand that this new Spider-Man series is a fresh continuity.

No one specifically requires it, but it is highly likely that webshooters is the way they will go this time because-

1)-It is more faithful to the original comics
2)-It will be another thing that will differentiate this film from the SM1-3
3)-It will please the hardcore fans, and restores that vulnerability in his abilities & the metaphor for PP’s scientific skills.

If the organic webbing worked previously then there is no need to change it.

See above.

Lastly logic does not apply here if you're willing to suspend disbelief for Spider-Man and you cannot know the full body of opinions of other fans.

It is more logical to stick to the comics rather than alter details that do nothing to improve the character, but instead take away a kick ass dynamic to Spidey’s abilities- his webs not being everlasting & also remove the cool visual metaphor/reminder of his advanced scientific abilities.

While I don’t know what every Spidey fan in the world thinks about this issue, going by discussions in comicbook stores across the UK, and opinions on the internet including this thread/poll, the majority want to see webshooters this time, and I'd bet my hat it's going to go down that way.

Deal with it.

 

[spider-neil]

with web shooters you kill two birds with one stone

a) peter is super intelligent.
peter's intelligence is like batman's detective skill, its been 'hinted' at but they really don't embrace it. in the movies you get the CLEAR distinction that tony start is super smart but peter is in that class and you'd never guess it. if I knew nothing about PP I'd figure he is an above studant not a genius. mechs would show that

b) you make a clear distinction from the old spider-man
the movie has to keep hammering it home this isn't the old spider-man and any way they show that is a good thing. there are also story potential, mech clog up, pete uses all the cartriges in one go to cause an explosion, a villian crushes them mid battle

mechs aren't a deal breaker for me but given the choice I'd rather have them than not

 

[Mach2Infinity]

Like I said, they will want to do –EVERYTHING- they can to distinguish this new film from the Noughties series. That will include changing smaller but significant stuff such as scraping the organics and pleasing the fans and going with webshooters.
It’s easy to understand.

If they adopt such a mentality then they will undoubtedly miss out on the important elements that marred the previous films. Which for argument's sake I will delineate: a lacklustre Mary-Jane Watson, a whinging Aunt May, a humourless Spider-Man (the jokes were bad), a visually disappointing Green Goblin, killing off supervillains, making the villains too closely tied to Peter Parker and sympathetic. Let's not forget the crammed affair that was the third film. Of course it's easy to understand but doesn't mean we should accept it.

I’m a hardcore fan and it would certainly please me and be one improvement over the Noughties films, to go along with the other stuff that needs to be corrected from the Noughties films.

"That’s your version."

This thread is about the webshooters.
If you want to talk about that other stuff there are plenty of threads.
THIS ONE is about the issue of mechs vs organics.

I know full well the point of this thread. I can certainly question the validity of a thread solely dedicated to the "organics or web shooters" (sic) question. Especially when such a question would be more appropriate in a broader thread about what we would like retain/change about the character. The points I made weren't superfluous and were relative to the ones I raised.

Me, and PLENTY of other Spider-fans (see poll results ) would prefer web shooters in the new film, along with all that other stuff that needs correcting being fixed. To me the webshooters are just as important as making Spidey a wise ass, or getting MJ’s character right this time because the mechs are a subtle yet crucial part of who Spider-Man is.

I and I'm sure plenty of others would disagree. Quoting a statistic from this forum and it relying on it for your argument is rather flimsy. This forum (whilst full of dedicated fans I'm sure) cannot be used as an accurate gauge to determine whether the artificial web-shooters would be popular with all fans (since they represent a rather small but vocal number), which you seem to suggest. As I have detailed earlier, which shows my sincerity in discussing the topic despite some reservations. There is a compromise. Spider-Man can still develope a device which attaches to the wrist and can be used to make different shapes and sizes from the web which is excreted organically. Furthermore, he can use it to carry certain gadgets, web tracers or electronic 'bugs' for example. Moreover, to augment his abilities in such a way would speak more highly of his intellectual prowess. I would rather the films try something the other films and comics have not tried. Since evolving a character is healthy and I certainly think a hybrid system would be more memorable. Perhaps it may defy expectation.

Inconsequential in your estimation, the popular fan consensus and poll results appear to say something different tho.

Well here they do but they're a minute sample of a much, much broader base of opinion. Furthermore polls can change and if they were to 'swing' (pun intended) the other way. I would like to see your reaction.

No one specifically requires it, but it is highly likely that webshooters is the way they will go this time because-

1)-It is more faithful to the original comics
2)-It will be another thing that will differentiate this film from the SM1-3
3)-It will please the hardcore fans, and restores that vulnerability & metaphor for PP’s scientific skills.

Well it's a minor detail in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure many weren't keen on the idea of organic web-shooters but it didn't seem to bother many once the films were released. Changing details which are really for aesthetic value does not quantify as a meaningful and necessary change. I'm sure it'll please some hardcore fans at least. Peter Parker can still have 'limited webbing' by having organic web-shooters. One can imagine with his new found abilities, his metabolism will quicken and such traits as web-production can drain his body of certain nutrients. There's vulnerability right there.

It is more logical to stick to the comics rather than alter details that do nothing to improve the character, but instead take away a kick ass dynamic to Spidey’s abilities- his webs not being everlasting & also remove the cool visual metaphor/reminder of his advanced scientific abilities

In fact it would more efficient and logical to retain things that worked for the character. If they do not need changing or amending then there is little point in doing so. Other than simple window dressing, which is a rather vacuous and hollow pursuit. Simply to appear to be different. He can still invent this wrist device, he can also still only have finite supply of webbing. It merely can be illustrated differently yet without harming the character as a whole.

I will ask you. Once you're sitting in the cinema, watching the film and Spider-Man on-screen of course. After seeing him shooting web and if they are organic. Are you really going to spend the rest of the film upset because he's excreting web from his body? No, you'll be more concerned with how the plot is unfolding. Whether the characters and villains have been written properly and whether the right man was cast as Peter Parker.

While I don’t know what every Spidey fan in the world thinks about this issue, going by discussions in comicbook stores across the UK, and opinions on the internet including this thread/poll, the majority want to see webshooters this time.

Still they are only a small number of the total fanbase. So how many comic book stores across the UK have you visited? It's facile and obtuse to say "well opinions on the internet, this poll etc say this and that." They will only give you a sample. They may give you the correct sample but you cannot know simply from assuming that you're correctly judging by the limited sources of information from which you've based your opinion. I suppose next you'll be telling me you've been visiting comic book stores in the USA?

Deal with it.

I think you're the one who isn't quite..."dealing with it." Grow up, son.

 

[Crook]

Hold on. You stated (to infer is to deduce/conclude not imply) where other interpretations of the character have employed artificial webshooters; the film ought not to deviate from this tradition.

No, it means there's simply less reason to try and change it for the sake of alteration. I would consider this to be a case of "don't fix what isn't broken".

Which gives me the impression that if one is to be bothered about minutiae such as organic/artificial webbing then we may as well translate every single minute detail to the screen.

What can I say, you have the completely wrong impression.

Will it really affect your experience of viewing the film if he shoots web naturally? This is the ultimate question.

To answer your question: no. And you know what? If I flipped the same question towards pro-organic fans, they'd likely answer the same. This thread asks us what we prefer, not what we are likely to accept/dismiss. Hence people here explaining why they prefer organics or mechanical.

Furthermore I did not state nor imply that the argument for artificial web shooters was purposesly there to oppose a previous interpretation.

What is this?

I would much prefer if they use organic web shooters. To change it to artificial web shooters would simply be to purposely be different from the other films and is no more than superficial.

Am I reading it in the improper context?

I know full well that Spider-Man has employed self-made web shooters since the very inception of his character. You're the one missing the point. The point is a studio may think in myopic terms as: "well the last films had Spidey shoot web naturally. Let's make him different and shoot it from a 'device'!" The implication is studios believe that such simple changes in detail translate to wholesale changes in a character. When it is no more than a superficial change. I'm far more concerned with how Spider-Man will be characterised (the inclusion of more humour or 'quips' etc) than if he shoots web naturally or not. The vast majority of cinemagoers will accept it I imagine. Which they seemed to do last time.

I believe you are already in a specific discussion in how the webshooters directly associate with the character in far more than superficial terms, so I'll leave it to you with the other poster.

As for "oh, they'll accept it"....WEAK argument. Please let that be the last we hear of it. I could have used the same damn tactic to better use, considering webshooters have a 50+ year precedence with no notable backlash from fans or the general public. General audiences don't have their hearts in the material, so I wouldn't expect them to care about particulars. Truth is they are likely to accept the changes just as much as the faithful properties. The bottom-line for them is entertainment.

The irony is you'll happily accept a man who has the characteristics of a spider conferred upon him by a spider bite yet you find it very difficult that he would also be able to secrete web as a spider does. When I mentioned mutation I meant that he wouldn't sprout six legs and six eyes. Would the audience require a portion of the screen time devoted to detailing how a man's anatomy has adopted web secretion? If yes then we may as well indulge half the film explaining how a man has spider characteristics. By virtue of what Spider-Man does he defies human physiology.

We're talking about a fictional character who has no basis in reality and all I've expressed is a preference or predilection for this same character to secrete web biologically. It is the manner in which you reply to my posts which does not involve much sense.

My entire point was that if an audience can suspend disbelief that a man who has acquired the capacity to do things a spider can, they will not need to question how such a man can create web naturally. To me, it follows on logically from Peter Parker gaining these 'powers'.

You don't need to reiterate to me the ability for the audience to suspend their disbelief in organics. We have all witnessed it for the better part of the decade in 3 blockbuster films.

I take concern with people clinging onto the "it's fake, stop being so anal" position, and concurrently using "it only makes sense" as part of their arguments. That to me is contradictory. You either acknowledge the silliness of it and hope people will be able to watch the film without interference, or you stick with your guns that it really does make sense and explain why. Without conveniently picking and choosing what works for you. I'll avoid resorting to scientific jargon, but feel free to look at my previous posts if you want to see my opinion on both.

If you like organics, that's all well and good. I will never fault anyone for having a preference. But my lack of participation stops there when faulty proclamations are made.

The thing in which I'd be interested is if Peter Parker finds a break-through in material design by studying the web he naturally secretes. Perhaps being able to create artificial webbing. What may satisfy both camps is that during the first film. Peter Parker's anatomy has not mutated fully to allow himself to create web. So he has to do it in a laboratory.

I found this excerpt on Wikipedia:

The discovery of silk-producing organs on the feet of the zebra tarantula (Aphonopelma seemanni) has led to questions about the origins of spinnerets. It has been hypothesised that spinnerets were originally used as climbing aids on the feet and evolved for webmaking at a later time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinneret_(spider) (link)

Whether it is based in fact? I don't know but it's interesting nonetheless.

Ignoring the physiological aspect for a moment, my biggest issue is where the webs come from. Wrists are faithful to the source, but making it organic also makes absolutely NO sense to me in any way. If they were to adapt the 'spinnerets originating from the feet' idea, then I would be a lot more receptive to the melding of both concepts. But as it stands, I can suspend my disbelief a lot more in webshooters than in organics (refer to my previous posts). It being in the comics is merely a perk.

 

[DieSmiling]

Organic. I've always thought the idea of web shooters was ludicrous.

 

[Octoberist]

Organic Shooters all the way.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

No, it means there's simply less reason to try and change it for the sake of alteration. I would consider this to be a case of "don't fix what isn't broken".

Priceless, you've re-iterated my point. If the organic web-excretion concept worked in the previous film. There's no need to change it for the next film.

What can I say, you have the completely wrong impression.

No I don't.

To answer your question: no. And you know what? If I flipped the same question towards pro-organic fans, they'd likely answer the same. This thread asks us what we prefer, not what we are likely to accept/dismiss. Hence people here explaining why they prefer organics or mechanical.

Then there's very little point going to the trouble of explaning things to the length which you have done. The thread specifically doesn't ask anything beyond "organics or web-shooters" (sic) and to me I would say people's predilection for them go beyond mere preference if the thread has persisted thus far.

I believe you are already in a specific discussion in how the webshooters directly associate with the character in far more than superficial terms, so I'll leave it to you with the other poster.

It's not a private discussion. If it were so I would have taken it to private messaging. That particular discussion expounds on what I discussed with you so it is relevant. Thematically and artistically, the concept of a hybrid system which I discussed seems the way forward and I think would settle individuals of both camps.

As for "oh, they'll accept it"....WEAK argument. Please let that be the last we hear of it. I could have used the same damn tactic to better use, considering webshooters have a 50+ year precedence with no notable backlash from fans or the general public. General audiences don't have their hearts in the material, so I wouldn't expect them to care about particulars. Truth is they are likely to accept the changes just as much as the faithful properties. The bottom-line for them is entertainment.

It's not weak given it seems to be de facto ever since the release of the trilogy. If it were such an important issue that people were irate about then we would have seen such threads long before now. I don't think you could have put anything to better use even if you had a handbook. So let's peddle away from that one. The fact is the previous films made a change to the character (which in the rung of priorities is not that important) and it did not detract from the films. So it is safe to say they won't find it difficult. Since you have already said that if you asked anyone here, it wouldn't affect their overall enjoyment of the film. It's rather pointless mentioning the 48-year precedence since fans and cinemagoers eased into the organic concept without any lasting backlash or furore. The 'bottom line' for anyone is entertainment surely.

I take concern with people clinging onto the "it's fake, stop being so anal" position, and concurrently using "it only makes sense" as part of their arguments. That to me is contradictory. You either acknowledge the silliness of it and hope people will be able to watch the film without interference, or you stick with your guns that it really does make sense and explain why. Without conveniently picking and choosing what works for you. I'll avoid resorting to scientific jargon, but feel free to look at my previous posts if you want to see my opinion on both.

I accept fully the Spider-Man character. Which is why I'm willing to suspend disbelief that a man bitten by an preternatural spider is given the spider's aiblities; especially web-production. If I had trouble with the concept I wouldn't bother to watch Spider-Man at all.

Am I reading it in the improper context?

If you like organics, that's all well and good. I will never fault anyone for having a preference. But my lack of participation stops there when faulty proclamations are made.

That's strange. All I said that I felt the move to change from organic to synthetic web-shooters was a stylistic choice rather than a practical one. Since it did not detract from the other films. Moreover, I did not say it was to 'oppose' or to be contrarian but to be different. You implied a certain adversarial element to a fairly innocuous statement which I did not attribute.

Ignoring the physiological aspect for a moment, my biggest issue is where the webs come from. Wrists are faithful to the source, but making it organic also makes absolutely NO sense to me in any way. If they were to adapt the 'spinnerets originating from the feet' idea, then I would be a lot more receptive to the melding of both concepts. But as it stands, I can suspend my disbelief a lot more in webshooters than in organics (refer to my previous posts). It being in the comics is merely a perk.

However in this case you cannot accept the "silliness" of having organic web-producing glands or spinnerets. To answer your question, if you can accept a man will inherit abilities from an insect bite then it's perplexing why you have trouble accepting one ability. If you feel that the film needs to somehow justify or eluciadate how it would be so (considering the changes in physiology necessary) then by that logic. You would need to explain how a teenager can crawl walls, possess superhuman strength and have precognition. Don't pick and choose now.

To put this one to rest. For me a hybrid web-shooter will be perfect. The fusion of biology and technology is the perfect illustration of human ingenuity. To improve on nature and augment one's own abilities keeps in character to what the comics showed about Peter Parker's intellect whilst also trying something new to please those who want a different 'spin' on the web question.

 

[Octoberist]

long live organic webshooters

 

[Crook]

Priceless, you've re-iterated my point. If the organic web-excretion concept worked in the previous film. There's no need to change it for the next film.

I guess me referencing web shooters taking precedent has been lost on you. Praytell, what was the situation with webshooters pre-Raimi? Was it deemed a broken concept?

No I don't.

If you're going to insist on telling me what I would or should want, we can stop right here. I don't know why it's so hard to view these details on a case-by-case basis.

Then there's very little point going to the trouble of explaning things to the length which you have done. The thread specifically doesn't ask anything beyond "organics or web-shooters" (sic) and to me I would say people's predilection for them go beyond mere preference if the thread has persisted thus far.

The strong inclinations for either are still deeply rooted in preference. But fans tend to have the urge to talk down the opposing side to support their own. Just look at how few people here have actually acknowledged the absurd elements of both options.

It's not a private discussion. If it were so I would have taken it to private messaging. That particular discussion expounds on what I discussed with you so it is relevant. Thematically and artistically, the concept of a hybrid system which I discussed seems the way forward and I think would settle individuals of both camps.

I commented on your hybrid system. I avoided that other discussion because (for the most part) all the points I would have made were already given. Forgive me for not wanting to retread on the same points you've already discussed with someone else. That would be a waste of both our time.

It's not weak given it seems to be de facto ever since the release of the trilogy. If it were such an important issue that people were irate about then we would have seen such threads long before now.

I'm certainly glad you've made my point for me. You clearly were not around message boards at the time of Raimi's first go-round at the character.

Since you have already said that if you asked anyone here, it wouldn't affect their overall enjoyment of the film. It's rather pointless mentioning the 48-year precedence since fans and cinemagoers eased into the organic concept without any lasting backlash or furore. The 'bottom line' for anyone is entertainment surely.

I've only mentioned the precedence because you initially brought up the trilogy as defending their presence. This is all well and good, except I never proclaimed the audience would not like it. You seem to have agreed that both work, so you have reached a stalemate. Can you understand why I've been so dismissive of that "point" in the first place?

That's strange. All I said that I felt the move to change from organic to synthetic web-shooters was a stylistic choice rather than a practical one. Since it did not detract from the other films. Moreover, I did not say it was to 'oppose' or to be contrarian but to be different. You implied a certain adversarial element to a fairly innocuous statement which I did not attribute.

Please stop playing with semantics. When you write "purposefully different", of course I'm going to read that as adversarial to the concept. You're not insinuating an innate nature of being dissimilar, but the volition of contradistinction.

However in this case you cannot accept the "silliness" of having organic web-producing glands or spinnerets. To answer your question, if you can accept a man will inherit abilities from an insect bite then it's perplexing why you have trouble accepting one ability.

Because the abilities Peter did acquire in the comics are all relatively explained with a degree of plausibility (as far as one can get when dealing with fantasy, anyway). I've gone out of my way to state my opposition towards organics, and you keep responding with "well Peter has those other powers, why not this?". As I've said previously, if you don't actually have an explanation for your preference in organics, it's fine. I really don't care so as long people realize the design falters upon close inspection. Otherwise, I'm still waiting.

If you feel that the film needs to somehow justify or eluciadate how it would be so (considering the changes in physiology necessary) then by that logic. You would need to explain how a teenager can crawl walls, possess superhuman strength and have precognition. Don't pick and choose now.

Don't be so quick to assume. If you had paid attention to the Raimi films you've constantly referenced, or the comics, his powers have been thoroughly "explained".

Wall-crawling via hair-like fibers growing all over his body, superhuman strength via proportionate strength of a spider, and the spider-sense myth is based on an arachnid's fast reflexes to environmental vibrations. Even Stan had the strength of mind to exclude organic spider-webs, because he couldn't think of a plausible explanation for their existence on Peter's wrists. Hell, Raimi didn't even bother with it.

 

[Agent 194]

I remember the old days of this site, back when it was 'Spider-Man hype' and I always thought the "it's just not believable to have web shooters" argument was ridiculous. Is most of what we talk about and celebrate on here believable?

I say mechanical. If you're starting new start new. I think they're cool.

 

[san15]

It doesn't matter what kind of web he uses, because it'll still be in CG anyways. Also it won't make or break the movie IMO.

 

[mothy]

i'm an organic webbing fan, but i voted for web shooters. purely just to differentiate from raimi's trilogy.

 

[Octoberist]

it's one of those things that, it might be neat to see web shooters, but in the end, it's kinda trivial. Yeah, you can have a plot point where he 'runs out of ammo' but you..it's pretty much a one time deal.

 

[Dragon]

it's one of those things that, it might be neat to see web shooters, but in the end, it's kinda trivial. Yeah, you can have a plot point where he 'runs out of ammo' but you..it's pretty much a one time deal.

Running out of ammo isn't the point. Peter bringing something to the table is. He's not just some dumbass who got bitten by a spider. He doesn't just have super powers. There have been many- MANY times in his history where his powers alone couldn't save him. But his intellect, his genius has. That's the point of the webshoters.

 

[The Slang]

I can see why they went with organics

a) if you got your powers from a spider it would make sense you'd get ALL its powers

So Parker should have poisonous saliva and the ability to throw his hair at people to cause them irritation? You did say ALL its powers.

I'm shocked and appalled at the number of people who support organic webshooters... Stan Lee would vomit in horror. I thought mechanical would be the favourite by a land slide, instead I find that its barely the majority. Spider-man is sci-fi. Parker is a genius. In the marvel universe there were plenty of technologies that were less advanced or even non-existant in the real world (hence sci-fi). I'm sure SHIELD already had some advanced adhesive weapons. Parker just revolutionized the technology. Is it so hard to believe that a genius can invent something that doesn't yet exist? Tesla anyone? oh I'm sorry... Edison?

You actually in some way find it more believable for him to have webs explode from his completely human looking forearms? That's just the writers way of simplifying the story (their job) for the audience (young children).

 

[spider-neil]

So Parker should have poisonous saliva and the ability to throw his hair at people to cause them irritation? You did say ALL its powers.

I'm shocked and appalled at the number of people who support organic webshooters... Stan Lee would vomit in horror. I thought mechanical would be the favourite by a land slide, instead I find that its barely the majority. Spider-man is sci-fi. Parker is a genius. In the marvel universe there were plenty of technologies that were less advanced or even non-existant in the real world (hence sci-fi). I'm sure SHIELD already had some advanced adhesive weapons. Parker just revolutionized the technology. Is it so hard to believe that a genius can invent something that doesn't yet exist? Tesla anyone? oh I'm sorry... Edison?

You actually in some way find it more believable for him to have webs explode from his completely human looking forearms? That's just the writers way of simplifying the story (their job) for the audience (young children).

truth is either way I'm happy but I would really enjoy a montage of him

* making webshooters
* making a spider tracer
* making a spider signal/light/beam/torch (whatever the heck it is called)

sam missed a trick by not showing pete's genius. in fact the only reall time when I thought 'hey, this kid is super intelligent' is when pete and doc ock were talking about the fusion reactor the night before the accident

 

[Artistsean]

Also by having Webshooters, a spider-belt with web cartriges and a Spider signal, and spider trackers, they missed out.
Imagine if they were featured in the movie, then the studio could make toys and replicas of all of them.

Kids could play with the Spider Signal Flash light, or the Spider-belt with the light built into it, or something like that.

Plus it would be cool to see on screen.


But I am happy with or without those things, organic or not.
But even if they go organic, they could still use the Spider-belt, light, and trackers.

Thats where he stores his camera.

 

[spider-neil]

Also by having Webshooters, a spider-belt with web cartriges and a Spider signal, and spider trackers, they missed out.
Imagine if they were featured in the movie, then the studio could make toys and replicas of all of them.

that is an extremely good point

 

[The Slang]

Aw man, the utility belt and the tracers would be excellent. I thought it really gave spidey a sense of authority when he'd project his signal down onto some unexpecting thugs. Sort of a 'BUSTED!' moment.
And when he'd track people using his tracers, sometimes they'd mistakingly believe him to have some supernatural skill. (I mean aside from the ones he does have)

 

[spider-neil]

Aw man, the utility belt and the tracers would be excellent. I thought it really gave spidey a sense of authority when he'd project his signal down onto some unexpecting thugs. Sort of a 'BUSTED!' moment.
And when he'd track people using his tracers, sometimes they'd mistakingly believe him to have some supernatural skill. (I mean aside from the ones he does have)

remember the scene in SM1 where spidey taken down the guys who are robbing the armoured car so he can get photos, how cool would it have been if he shone his spider signal on them first?

and even better a super villian hands spidey his arse and as the villian is taking off spidey pops a tracer on him, 'see you soon rhino...' before slipping into consciousness

 

[The Slang]

Thats the kinda slick spidey action I'd pay to see.

 

[spider-neil]

Thats the kinda slick spidey action I'd pay to see.

you'd pay to see spidey if they used glove puppets

 

[Golgo-13]

I can't believe how close the polls are. Back in 2001, ppl wanted to rip Raimi a new one for giving Spidey organics, and now alot seem to embrace them. I think it's solely do to the fact that ppl are 'used to' seeing the organics now, moreso than them preferring them....

 

[The Slang]

you'd pay to see spidey if they used glove puppets

ShhHHhhHh! You wanna give Sony ideas?

By the way, I think that armoured van robbery in SM1 was the best part of all 3 movies. Unfortunately...