The Amazing Spider-Man Spider-Man Reboot Costume Part 4 - "What's that in his eye??" edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's in an article and photo in Entertainment Weekly that the film is going to have webshooters. Emma Stone was quoted a week into filming saying that he had mechanical webshooters. A writer of the movie has stated that he has mechanical webshooters. Need I go on?
 
Are you simply making a point or suggesting that Peter may not use webshooters in TAS-M?

No im actually 99% sure he'll have them...however to bandwagon a film over something as small as that...which could easily removed thru computers...is pretty silly IMO
 
Oh my god dude, you're just a Raimi film fanboy that's upset to see people that are happy to see that the webshooters will actually be used in this film.

We all love Raimi's films. Without them, there's no TASM. But it's time to move on.
 
go to 50 seconds in the trailer I put up. When he is shooting his webs in his room he clearly has two web shooters on his wrists. Unless you believe he wears two watches.


[YT]FN3YaybNJ2s[/YT]

in fact look at the desk and you'll see he has bracelet type things on it
Actually, here's the trailer with the web-shooters. This is the original teaser.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFo_S7pIScY&feature=related
 
You wanted me to say it, yet, I still enjoyed it. It's cheesy, and maybe it whent on a little too long, but it was enjoyable. Potty train? oh man, you truly are crazy. Stop being self absorbed, ever consider that? Guess what? I still thought SPider-Man 3 was good regardless of the dance scene.
I'm sure you did thought SM3 was awesome, I'm sure you did.

Wait, stop right there. How do you know raimi used all of his techniques? He didn't and that's another reason I don't think you've seen his other films. for example, his camera techniques weren't liek in Eivl Dead and neither were the weird querky moments like in Evil Dead. You're blowing so many things out of proportion. Why? because you hate Sam Raimi. There was only a little comedy in his films over all, especially the first 2. And the comedy worked for most people! JJJ, Peter beign over confident in S-M2, etc. What part of that do you ont understand? There's a reason comic book films are what's IN now. And Spider-man is what pushed it foward whether you want to admit that or not.
Who cares about his so called techniques with the camera. I'm talking about his ability to make most of his films juvenile and goofy with a flair for cheese. Comedy doesn't belong in scenes where JJJ is talking about a villain (Green Goblin) who just murdered several people in cold blood.

Doesn't think to ourselves? Oh please, I'm just as against people using critics opinions for there own as the next person. However, The FACT is that the majority of people who have reviewd the first 2 films have called them fantastic. Majority = more than people who dislike them
Really, if your against it, why keep using critics to try and prove your point. Can't you think for yourself? Roger Ebert gave the Garfield movie the thumbs up, am I suppose to love that crap too because he does?

Which all the more proves you don't know the JJJ character. In the early days, he'd want it on the fornt page immediately. He was a fast talker! Childish antics and fart jokes? Oh you have no idea how much you are in the minority with how you feel about Sam Raimi. You'd get eaten alive by the horror community if you bashed Raimi in front of them. Hell, I'm part of the community.
You keep saying I'm in the minority like that's a slam against me, I don't mind being in the minority, when the majority is defending poorly made films. Transformers is about to hit a billion dollars worldwide, it's still a crap movie to me.

What point? It's a dark comedy horror film. Stephen King loved it. Wes Craven loved it. All the gods of horror loved it, so tell me again how Evil Dead is stupid?
It's still a juvenile, cheesy and goofy movie, regardless of what Craven and King says. You just don't like thinking for yourself, do you? You should try it, it's liberating.

It was meant to show what the symbiote has done to him. As far as I'm concerned, we were suppsoed to dislike him strutting because that's not who he is. Yes, it was a bit over the top but it did not ruin the movie. Why? Because I'm willing to embrace SOME change
You're right, it was over-the-top...and unnecessary. With the direction of SM3, all people were talking about was Peter strutting his stuff and that dreadful dance scene. The execution of the symbiote story can off horribly. The 90s cartoon handled it much better than a 258M dollar film did, that's pathetic.

It's a comic book movie. Get used to it. Sure, Goblin murdered people differnetly in the comics, but then again, Raimi stated his Spider-Man is in a comic book/fantasy world. Also, how was the performance bad? Willem Dafoe is a very talented actor who chose the role for a damn good reason. What about blowing up that trolly thing or whatever? or blowing up the general and those test pilots?
No, I will never get use to mediocre films based on comic books. Spider-Man should be better than what we were given. Willem DaFoe may be a talented actor, but when you have a horrible script and a mediocre director, you're bound to get a hammy performance, and we did.

Doc Ock had a sympathetic side but it was molded with his menacing attitude from the comic books, just so you know. THAT is how you make a comic book film your own. And that's why so many people praise molina's character as well. I think you're in denial.
Right, with him in horror over the killings of what his evil tentacles have done (not himself), that's a menacing attitude. Then he kills himself saving the city Mr. "I Will Not Die A Monster" instead of fighting Spider-Man from trying to destroy his life work. In case you didn't know, it's Dr. Connors who's the sympathetic doctor. I don't blame Molina, I blame the script and director.

It's their opinion. They state it as there opinion. You, on the other hand, state yours as though it's fact. Simple as that.
Why does that bother you so? I happen to think that it's a fact that the Spider-Man films are mediocre.

It fit the tone of the Spider-Man character himself. People look up to him, men women, and children. it's been expressed in the comics, my friend. The Boy Who Collected Spider-Man is a perfect example if you read comic books. Or, is that too cheesy for you as well?
Catering to only children when your movie is PG-13 is asinine. You might as well make it a G-rated film. You can have kids look up to Spider-Man without the overly cringe worthy and cutesy dialogue/scenes.

John Romita jr. said he wasn't 100% pleased with Spider-Man 3, so there goes your point about them being forced to say something.
Wow, not 100% pleased, was he 99% pleased with it? Call me when he has the balls to calls it the piece crap that it is.

But it should if you want to stay true to the comics, which is what so many people on here seem to b**** about. And from what I remember, they did take it seriously. So what, they didn't focus on the deaths for 45 minutes, but it was acknowledged in the paper Osborn read when talking in the mirror. It was acknowledged.
Are you serious, murder should be taken in a light-hearted way in a Spider-Man film because of the comics. Well hell, why not just have Peter Parker laughing, pointing and giggling when Uncle Ben is murdered. :dry:

No, they didn't take it seriously, not when they were trying to come up with a name for the Green Goblin after he killed innocent people. The green guy on the glider just murdered multiple people and JJJ and Hoffman are talking about 'Green Meanie' in a humorous way. There's no sense of danger or threat when Spidey's A-List villains are introduce through The Daily Bugle. They're just jokes.

Then I guess overall, you don't like certain aspects of the original Spider-Man that Stan Lee created. Yes, there were changes in the movies, but the were more similarities than people want to acknowledge. There's a reason people praised Raimi from 2002-2007. I was here, I saw it.
I love the comics, but I don't expect to see aspects of the overly cheesy elements from the 60s comic books, to be dominate in a movie made in 2002 and beyond. It's common sense, it's why people prefer The Dark Knight over Batman & Robin and Batman Forever. A smart director knows where to draw the line.

Like I said, nobody is saying you have to like it. I think TDk is overrated, but I know I'm in the minority.

Your digging yourself a hole even deeper.

I really don't feel like argueing anymore. You can have your opinion , and rant all you want. Just don't expect everybody to agree with what you're saying.
Okay, I'll keep digging until I hit cheese, I might find you and Sam down there. I guess we can part ways on this note. It's been a blast. :cool:
 
Last edited:
No im actually 99% sure he'll have them...however to bandwagon a film over something as small as that...which could easily removed thru computers...is pretty silly IMO

That is true, but still...from the very beginning, we knew that they would go with the webshooters and not organic webbing, so it's totally fine if fans are excited to FINALLY see the webshooters show up on film as a lot of fans weren't into the idea of organic webbing, as I was.

Sure, realistically, they could indeed take away them via CGI or what have you, but it would be a very dumb thing to do.
 
Oh my god dude, you're just a Raimi film fanboy that's upset to see people that are happy to see that the webshooters will actually be used in this film.

We all love Raimi's films. Without them, there's no TASM. But it's time to move on.

um...no...to be honest the only Raimi films I've seen are the Spider-man flicks...i've seen bits an pieces of Evil Dead...so I am sure that doesnt make me a Raimi Film Fanboy

I am a fan of Spider-man so im not upset to see people happy about this film....oh I see...because I dont love 100% of a film I havent seen yet I have to be a lover of the Raimi films and not of the new one....god forbid I have some reservations about this film....which the only thing I have voiced was my dislike of the suit.

Thats a very narrow view of things you have there...you got to open that mind you have.
 
Raimi film fanboy as in a fanboy of the Raimi Spider-Man films. And you sure come across that way as you've gone out of your way twice now to discredit things from the new movie. Be it the suit and now the webshooters and yet I've seen nothing I would consider praiseworthy from you. It's your opinion and your tastes, but if you don't think you'll like this film, why post on the board?
 
Raimi film fanboy as in a fanboy of the Raimi Spider-Man films. And you sure come across that way as you've gone out of your way twice now to discredit things from the new movie. Be it the suit and now the webshooters and yet I've seen nothing I would consider praiseworthy from you. It's your opinion and your tastes, but if you don't think you'll like this film, why post on the board?

Actually Im not discrediting anything.
I mentioned my opinion of the suit and then I gave a commentary on people declaring a movie they had never seen as the greatest thing ever based on webshooters.
In fact I never said anything negative about the webspinners...in fact I never mentioned anything negative about the movie... I do have reservations about a fairly new director at the helm but I never mentioned that in this thread. I also never said I wasnt going to see this film.
 
I've never seen the suit reinterpreted in the books. It's only just changed for this film. The director probably thinks he can do better.
What, Spider-Man has don many different suits in the comic books over the decades. Marvel loves it. See:
spiderman_new_costume--300x450.jpg

It's really weird how you continue to use the Bat suit as the precedence in your argument when it really has no relevance here. I've already explained the reasoning behind why the batsuit was more easily accepted by the general public. There is literally no correlation between the altering of costumes between that franchise and the current Spider-man one. As it stands, the new spider suit will just put it into ppl's heads that this is just some cheap knock off spider-man film, lol. Bear in mind, they may still like the film, just not the suit.
Why can't I use Batman's movie suit as an example. It's not his classic blue/gray suit that they're using on film (yet no one cares). People didn't deem it as a cheap knock-off, they just accepted it was a different suit. My point is, the general audience won't give a damn if they enjoy the film.

The general audience didn't care about organics, Venom/Spider-Man wearing the blue/red suit painted black, Green Goblin's costume. They don't care about any of the Transformers being completely changed from there original designs. It's the fanboys that give a damn, and we're showing up regardless, so it's moot.
 
That's not Peter though.

Granted, you're right that Spider-Man has had suits that do look like Webb's version, but still...that's not Peter, lol.
 
Doesn't matter, people who view that image, regardless of who's under the suit will say: Spider-Man.
In fact you can use that suit for the sequel and no one will care, we might, but like I said it's moot. Marvel love changing Spider-Man's suit.
 
Last edited:
Actually Im not discrediting anything.
I mentioned my opinion of the suit and then I gave a commentary on people declaring a movie they had never seen as the greatest thing ever based on webshooters.
In fact I never said anything negative about the webspinners...in fact I never mentioned anything negative about the movie... I do have reservations about a fairly new director at the helm but I never mentioned that in this thread. I also never said I wasnt going to see this film.
And you have every right to. I'm extremely excited, but skeptical as well. I think it's normal to be that way.
 
I like how you all are having a big discussion without getting overly insulting...unless you count how some think "Raimi lover/fan" is an insult.

You guys seem almost.......civil :eek: :cwink:

Keep it up, you're making my job easier. lol
 
©KAW;20915501 said:
What, Spider-Man has don many different suits in the comic books over the decades. Marvel loves it. See:
spiderman_new_costume--300x450.jpg

Why can't I use Batman's movie suit as an example. It's not his classic blue/gray suit that they're using on film (yet no one cares). People didn't deem it as a cheap knock-off, they just accepted it was a different suit. My point is, the general audience won't give a damn if they enjoy the film.

Sorry, but I've read ASM issues 1-514 and the suit has never changed. Nuff said. This theory of yours that they love changing his costume is just in your head. Maybe you're thinking of Iron Man and got the characters confused.

I've already stated my position on the Bat suit, which you've conveniently ignored. I'm not repeating myself.

The general audience didn't care about organics, Venom/Spider-Man wearing the blue/red suit painted black, Green Goblin's costume. They don't care about any of the Transformers being completely changed from there original designs. It's the fanboys that give a damn, and we're showing up regardless, so it's moot.

The things you're talking about are very peripheral to the character, which general audiences may not know enough of to care about. The suit is iconic, and anyone who didn't know what it looked like before certainly do now. They may accept the film if it's well made, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll accept some frankenstein version of the Spider-man suit. I think Superman returns made over 200 million dollars, if I'm not mistaken, but does this mean that general audiences accepted Roth much less that new Superman suit, which is actually much more faithful than the current Spider-man one?

That's not Peter though.

Granted, you're right that Spider-Man has had suits that do look like Webb's version, but still...that's not Peter, lol.

No, he hasn't. The costume wasn't even altered when the Ultimate SM series began.
 
also in the 616 they have altered the suit a number of times...and yet still go back to the classic suit.
Spider-armor
black suit
scarlet spider
iron spider
ben reilly spidey suit
tron suit
secret war suit
 
If they stick with this suit, I can deal with it. I really can. It's not a bad suit and it still says 'spiderman' to me.

But, what if this is just a 'first suit'? Maybe he'll alter it in the next film to look similar to the comics?

In the end, as long as it's a great film, i don't care.
 
I'm having a hard time understanding how rambling posts *****ing about how Raimi is a ******, or he isnt, or you're a true Spider-Man fan, or you're not, etc has ANY relevance to the Spider-Man Reboot Costume Part 4 - 'What's that in his eye??" edition thread. Come on, people. Move it to another thread, or better yet, just stop all together.
 
©KAW;20915501 said:
What, Spider-Man has don many different suits in the comic books over the decades. Marvel loves it. See:
spiderman_new_costume--300x450.jpg


I never seen this suit, but then I dropped Ultimate Spider-Man after Ultimatum. So if that's not Peter who is it?
 
What's that in his eye edition? okay, so how many peeps on here think there's a Lizard in Spidey's lens in that new photo in EW this week. :spidey:
 
i thought he was looking at the matrix
 
I wanna see them incorporate a lot of costume changes in the series. It will be good for marketing and toys and it will be true to the comics. :yay:
 
I wanna see them incorporate a lot of costume changes in the series. It will be good for marketing and toys and it will be true to the comics. :yay:
I'd be ecstatic if they have him in a more faithful/"completed" suit at the end of the movie; they could do it to symbolize his evolution from being a kid whose learning to be a hero, and someone who has earned their belt - er - stripes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
202,403
Messages
22,097,688
Members
45,893
Latest member
DooskiPack
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"