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

[Chris Wallace]

How much is a skin-tight outfit going to move around anyway? Do people argue that Batman's belt should shift around when he fights? Or his armor plates?
"Oops-that's not where my grapple gun is! Damn it!"
No. Nobody has ever raised this argument in 60+ years & it's silly to bring it up now.
I have yet to get a satisfactory answer to this question; why are so many fans pushing for the mechs simply because they're more faithful to the completely fictional, scientifically implausible comics, and then turning around & saying they want him in a more cheaply-made costume because that's more realistic?

 

[The Slang]

I have yet to get a satisfactory answer to this question; why are so many fans pushing for the mechs simply because they're more faithful to the completely fictional, scientifically implausible comics, and then turning around & saying they want him in a more cheaply-made costume because that's more realistic?

I'll tell you why in my opinion.

1: In 100 years, science will be alot closer to creating mechanical web shooters than it will to creating organic ones. Within 100 years I have no doubt that we will have the capabilities to replicate all of spider-man's powers in a human being EXCEPT organic webshooters. Why? because nothing in nature including spiders can SHOOT webs in the way that spider-man does. The easiest option would always be to use something artifical, even if it was cybernetic.

2: There's a certain silent relationship between a soldier and his gun. Between a samurai and his sword. A musician and their instrument. And for me, spider-man and his webshooters. It's the union of a human being and a tool, the Mastery of it. The pursual of complete effectiveness. For humans are tool making animals. The fact that he's carrying devices on him makes him more like a police officer or other public servant. It was part of the feeling that I came to associate with spider-man. The tactical use of technology is living testimony to the idea that knowledge is power. Brains over brawn, Mind over matter etc

And as for the cheaper costume. The key to making something seem natural and real is imperfection. It's harder for me to respect something that seems so completely and utterly polished and showy and seeking approval. There's a falsness to it.
It's like the Hitman movie. Just the cover was enough to ruin it for me. I remember the character from the videogame being cold and cool. You had to respect his efficency. Then on the cover they have their rather soft looking actor in too much makeup with unatural lighting and touch ups, gazing into my eyes like he wanted to lure me to bed. Just another example of hollywood trying to pretty something up and completely neutering it in the process. So yeah, my point is that seeing spider-man in a cheaper costume will bring him closer to our world and make him seem less delicate and ornamental.

 

[david icke]

And as for the cheaper costume. The key to making something seem natural and real is imperfection. It's harder for me to respect something that seems so completely and utterly polished and showy and seeking approval. There's a falsness to it.
It's like the Hitman movie. Just the cover was enough to ruin it for me. I remember the character from the videogame being cold and cool. You had to respect his efficency. Then on the cover they have their rather soft looking actor in too much makeup with unatural lighting and touch ups, gazing into my eyes like he wanted to lure me to bed. Just another example of hollywood trying to pretty something up and completely neutering it in the process. So yeah, my point is that seeing spider-man in a cheaper costume will bring him closer to our world and make him seem less delicate and ornamental.

I don't think that comaprison to a well made costume is very apt at all. Comparing a guy wearing badly applied actor's make up with bad lighting is more akin to comparing it to a badly made awful looking, 'realistic' superhero costume, which is essentially what you want to replace the well designed one with. Because at the end of the day, it's all about what looks visually interesting and great onscreen.
With the movie Spider-man costume it's about trying to replicate the feeling you get when you look at a very well drawn and striking image from a comicbook.
This would not happen with the kind of costume you guys think you want.

So, to be more 'realistic', we should have a crappy looking, 'home made' costume, with no web definition, because that's what the guy would make in real life.
In real life he would wear what McGuire wore to the wrestling.
By this reasoning all Spider-man drawings should be of a guy with rips, patches and tears on his costume, baggy and saggy(when caught in wet weather for instance) , with a builder's ass hanging out of the trousers every now and again, after all that swinging and leaping about.
Or, if you want to ignore all the realistic things that would happen to his costume in real life and just settle for realistic stitching, you could just have a crappy looking tracksuit-like halloweeen suit, with the artist under instructions not to draw the webs in very well so you can barely see them.

Because that is what you are asking for, 'Make the costume look like crap please, as it would be more realistic!'

edit: and in fact, why not have crappy lighting following him around all the time? There's no film crew following Spidey around in 'real life', let's not only have a costume with webs you can't make out, let's not be able to make out Spidey very well either in general. Let's throw out the magic and illusion of moive making altogther and make it as realistic as possible, after all it's not like we need any kind of suspension of disbelief for these kinds of movies, or for movies in general right?

edit: and as for your argument about why they should not use organics... so they should not do certain things in sci-fi type fantasy movies because there is nothing in nature like it?!
How about they create a spider-man organic web shooter using a Spider's web and some kind of organic manipulation based on technology.
Sci-Fi is not bound by nature, sci-fi is subject to the imagination finding ways to further nature and technology through speculation.

edit: and anyway, if you mix up the spider DNA with a human's, you can speculate that the human part 'ejaculates' the web, sorry if anyone is reading this while eating their dinner, but that is the most obvious mix of human and spider nature to explain it.

 

[The Slang]

Oh damn I offended this guy again. Look dude, all that crap you just wrote is based completely on assumption. You don't know 'what I think I want'. I never mentioned anything about raised webs. I never said I wanted the costume to be a piece of ****. Just tone it down a notch so it doesn't look so fragile and valuable. So it looks like its for using and not just looking at. Don't you have the imagination to consider that there is a midpoint between the two extremes? And the problem with the hitman lighting/makeup wasn't that it was bad. It was good aesthetically, if he was meant to be on the cover of a fashion magazine instead of killing people. You might like all that glitter and glamour but I want a character I can relate to.

edit: and anyway, if you mix up the spider DNA with a human's, you can speculate that the human part 'ejaculates' the web, sorry if anyone is reading this while eating their dinner, but that is the most obvious mix of human and spider nature to explain it.

You're an idiot.

 

[david icke]

Oh damn I offended this guy again. Look dude, all that crap you just wrote is based completely on assumption. You don't know 'what I think I want'. I never mentioned anything about raised webs. I never said I wanted the costume to be a piece of ****. Just tone it down a notch so it doesn't look so fragile and valuable. So it looks like its for using and not just looking at. Don't you have the imagination to consider that there is a midpoint between the two extremes? And the problem with the hitman lighting/makeup wasn't that it was bad. It was good aesthetically, if he was meant to be on the cover of a fashion magazine instead of killing people. You might like all that glitter and glamour but I want a character I can relate to.



You're an idiot.

Ok, I'm the idiot, but you can't respond to a post without resorting to insults, and ignore most of my points.

and please, tell me how I think you offended me.

Ok big shot, how about showing some real life examples of what you want costume wise instead of just typing up essentially 'I want a costume that looks more like the person actually made it'.

Use my imagination to imagine a mid-point? I've already been over this subject in another thread thoroughly, and have seen no examples or arguments for any kind of costume improvement whatsoever.
Damn right I have to use my imagination, because no-one is shjowing any examples apart from home made costumes and crappy ones used for crappy tv shows.
As I said, please show some real life examples, because the Raimi costumes do not look that 'delicate' to me at all.

In all honestly i would be pleasantly surprised to be shown a way for teh webbing to created on a costume that was better and solved all the problems it poses.

dude,btw, I would not throw the word 'idiot' around so easily when you type up the kind of thing you did in your last post about organic webbing and why web shooters should be used because they 'will be invented in 100yrs!' LOL times a billion

edit: Not to mention you are convinced we will have real life Spider-men in the world...when?...'In a 100yrs!' LOL times 100yrs

 

[The Slang]

I really don't like you. Times a billion? what are you 6? oh, they won't have anti-gravity for a jillion, gazillion years. There are human animal hybrids being inceminated right now you clown. Nanotechnology has the potential to change the world as we know it. Nothing organic/naturally forming will ever have the range/fire power that an artifical device is capable of. I'm seriously considering the evolution of our technological capabilities, and all you can come up with is an ejaculating penis? Yes your an idiot. This is the second time I've made a point I'm passionate about and you bury it with some bull**** because of your own personal misinterpretations. You know all too well why you decided to bash my post. Which was an OPINION in response to CHRIS WALLACE that wasn't up for debate.

 

[david icke]

I really don't like you. Times a billion? what are you 6? oh, they won't have anti-gravity for a jillion, gazillion years.

Way to miss the point dude, I think using the argument 'We will have web-shooters and spider-men in 100yrs!' sounds much more like a child-like argument.
Difference is, yours was a serious argument, mine was a throwaway line.

btw, just curious, what do you think will be invenetd first in this 100yrs timeframe, web-shooters or spider-men genetics?
It's just that I'm organising my 135th birthday party quite soon and I'm wondering whether I should ask for some web-shooter cartridges, and where to set my birthday cake up, y'know, in case some guests will be entering by the window.

Point being, how on Earth can you argue that something should or should not be used in a sci-fi movie because you think it will be invented in 100yrs?!

There are human animal hybrids being inceminated right now you clown. Nanotechnology has the potential to change the world as we know it. Nothing organic/naturally forming will ever have the range/fire power that an artifical device is capable of. I'm seriously considering the evolution of our technological capabilities, and all you can come up with is an ejaculating penis? Yes your an idiot. This is the second time I've made a point I'm passionate about and you bury it with some bull**** because of your own personal misinterpretations. You know all too well why you decided to bash my post. Which was an OPINION in response to CHRIS WALLACE that wasn't up for debate.

Dude, couple of points first, I would not be throwing out insults all the time, it's against the rules, I mean, that's a good few you've launched now, idiot, clown etc. I'm telling you this because i like you, and i don't want to see such a good sport banned.

and it's a public debating forum mate, how you can post something up and say it isn't up for debate is beyond me.

and, holy crap, what's wrong with a bit of sci-fi speculation? and suddenly an argument is not valid as it invloves a penis?
It was simple sci-fi biological speculation for organic webbing, human/spider dna mix, in which the human is given super-strength proportionate to that of a spider. So why can't the power of ejaculation be increased along with all other strengths in the body? and why can't a muscle mechanism develop like that in the wrists to shoot the webs?
Just a harmless bit of sci-fi spec, I doubt it'll happen in a hundred years though, maybe a billion, give or take a birthday party.

 

[blah]

I voted for the Mechanical kind, but then it hit me! How about a mix of both?
To the best of my knowledge, spiders can't shoot their webs that far anyway, so how about if Peter made a mechanical wrist-mounted accelerator for his organically created web fluid.

Personally, I loved when peter used to modify his web fluid formula to adapt to the situation at hand.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm really not a fan of the combo idea; it was proposed for Raimi's films & ultimately discarded.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I really don't like you. Times a billion? what are you 6? oh, they won't have anti-gravity for a jillion, gazillion years. There are human animal hybrids being inceminated right now you clown. Nanotechnology has the potential to change the world as we know it. Nothing organic/naturally forming will ever have the range/fire power that an artifical device is capable of. I'm seriously considering the evolution of our technological capabilities, and all you can come up with is an ejaculating penis? Yes your an idiot. This is the second time I've made a point I'm passionate about and you bury it with some bull**** because of your own personal misinterpretations. You know all too well why you decided to bash my post. Which was an OPINION in response to CHRIS WALLACE that wasn't up for debate.

Throwing around personal remarks tends to invalidate your argument.
Look, the idea of a spider-Man is, at present, scientifically impossible and implausible. And nobody is going to go into a theater to see what THEY KNOW to be a sci-fi movie and think, "Wait a minute; that can't happen!"
Just out of curiosity, though, based on your argument, what are your thoughts on Venom, whose webbing is COMPLETELY organic & always has been, and NEVER had any sort of artificial supplement to project it.

 

[The Slang]

Well no one really understands the properties of the fictional symbiote, so the writers just leave it to our imagination. It seemed to be able to change from a solid to liquid state though. Which could allow it to mimic devices and create pressurized capsules. But his webbing was still 'alive' so long as it was attatched to him. He could will it forward just as the symbiote wills itself across the floor.

 

[Chris Wallace]

"Pressurized capsules"? Are you serious? I doubt that ANY writer ever thought that far into it. What explanation do you have for Miguel O'Hara, then? Or the brief period that Spidey actually had organic webbing in the comics?

 

[Chris Wallace]

We're talking about a world where someone like Wolverine can exist, who can jettison his natural claws at whatever speed suits him, without the benefit of any spring-loaded mechanism. Where a man can lose his sight due to radiation poisoning and be compensated with a built-in sonar.

 

[Immortalfire]

I really don't like you. Times a billion? what are you 6? oh, they won't have anti-gravity for a jillion, gazillion years. There are human animal hybrids being inceminated right now you clown. Nanotechnology has the potential to change the world as we know it. Nothing organic/naturally forming will ever have the range/fire power that an artifical device is capable of. I'm seriously considering the evolution of our technological capabilities, and all you can come up with is an ejaculating penis? Yes your an idiot. This is the second time I've made a point I'm passionate about and you bury it with some bull**** because of your own personal misinterpretations. You know all too well why you decided to bash my post. Which was an OPINION in response to CHRIS WALLACE that wasn't up for debate.

I too find the suggestion of an ejaculating webshooter..uh, weird to say the least. But don't refer to board users as idiots.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I too find the suggestion of an ejaculating webshooter..uh, weird to say the least. But don't refer to board users as idiots.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I have heard stories about this thread since I joined the hype, and I must say, it is as crazy as people said. People want complete scientific plausibility in superhero films? I don't understand why.

How much is a skin-tight outfit going to move around anyway? Do people argue that Batman's belt should shift around when he fights? Or his armor plates?
"Oops-that's not where my grapple gun is! Damn it!"
No. Nobody has ever raised this argument in 60+ years & it's silly to bring it up now.
I have yet to get a satisfactory answer to this question; why are so many fans pushing for the mechs simply because they're more faithful to the completely fictional, scientifically implausible comics, and then turning around & saying they want him in a more cheaply-made costume because that's more realistic?

People are pushing for mechanical webslingers only because they were in comics. Comic fanboys want films to be completely like the comics when it just isn't possible.

I mean, if they were switched around, people would overwhelming want organic webslinging.

I for one, want organic webslinging but I won't lose my mind if they go mechanical. Even Stan Lee likes organic webslinging better.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I have heard stories about this thread since I joined the hype, and I must say, it is as crazy as people said. People want complete scientific plausibility in superhero films? I don't understand why.

So they'll have something to complain about.

 

[Matt.S99]

yeah one thing i can't seem to understand that everybody is acting like peter parker was like homeless poor. He wasn't even desperate poor he has a job!! Working for a big NY paper like the bugle must own him big. you seen the movie he gets like 300 maybe even 500 for his shots of spidey. So i think it is possible for peter parker to have the money to buy his web fluid materials. I don't think he was that poor.

He isnt super poor, but im sure the materials would cost quite a bit. Not to mention all the money he had to put into developing the fluid, but I dont think that we need to worry too much about it, its just a movie after all.

 

[webslinger81]

I hope they go with mechanical web shooters this time. It could possibly add more drama to fight scenes & everything else. Plus the mechanical shooters will showcase how much of a smart kid Peter really is.

 

[The Squirrel]

Organics are creepy. Yes, they worked in the other movies. But since this is a reboot, let's give mechanics a try this time.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I can't wait for the GA's reaction if they go with mechs; "Why did they take away his web powers and give him silly string?"

 

[©KAW]

I can't wait for the GA's reaction if they go with mechs; "Why did they take away his web powers and give him silly string?"

The general audience won't care one way or the other, because they don't read the comics, and if they did, they wouldn't be asking that question. They would be saying; "Why the hell did they give him ORGANICS in the first place?"

How sad is it when the director screws up so badly on so many important Spider-Man elements, that the norm for Spider-Man are things that were never given to him by his creator.

How many new fans of the property are we going to have to correct and say..."No, Sandman really isn't Uncle Ben's killer, that was just in the movies." Just like Batman fans had to do with those who thought The Joker was actually Bruce Wayne's parents killer.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Actually, because the GA isn't familiar with the comics, the ORGANIC webbing is what would be most familiar to them. The change would likely confuse many of them & possibly bring about the "silly string" reference, as that is the closest thing in the real world to his snythetic webbing. (I've often wondered if the web shooter was the inspiration for this invention) The uninitiated are not put off or grossed out in any way by the organic webbing any more than by the wall-crawling; to them it's just a natural extension of the abilities and attributes of a man who would call himself Spider-Man. It's only us, the comic fans, who overthink & get hung up on these things and debate them to death. It's only us who get annoyed when someone takes a movie's liberties as canon. So what if Ra's Al Ghul was neither Henri Ducard nor Batman's mentor? Who truly cares if Tony Stark was wounded in Asia & not the Middle East? Who really gives a crap if Krypton isn't made of crystals? Nobody but us.
And the uninitiated cannot be discounted, as they greatly outnumber us & are the REAL driving force behind a movie's numbers. They make or break a movie, not fanboys who walk out of the theater citing the myriad differences between the movie & the comic.

 

[©KAW]

So because of this, you think it's alright to just change everything that makes Spider-Man great and known to his fanbase. Unlike those changes you named for Iron Man and Batman, their characters that make them who they are are kept intact, Spider-Man isn't.

So it's okay because the general audience doesn't care and that they make or break a film--that we all should just lie down and shut up. Not going to happen, not when we see Spider-Man being changed to the point where he's no longer Spider-Man. I don't even know what the hell I was watching on screen for 8 years, all I kept saying was, "where the hell is Spider-Man?"

 

[Dangerous]

I don't even know what the hell I was watching on screen for 8 years, all I kept saying was, "where the hell is Spider-Man?"

Word.

All these newbs can argue why organics are better than mechs, but I'd say it's HIGHLY likely mechs will be used in SM2012 and then everything will be cool on this issue. And hopefully, they will get the rest of Spidey right this time too.