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

[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]

 

[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]

get a believable hairpiece Shat

 

[NinjaCarm]

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:

Spoiler

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.