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

[Arach Knight]

What if Spider-Man changes or upgrades his costume during the movie series like Batman. If that happens I want this costume for 2nd movie

I don't see that as much of a shift. The current film costume seems to be drawing influences specifically from Reilly's suit. From the way in which the gloves feature blue tips, to the exposed web shooters, to the chest spider that has exaggerated legs. They are not to the same extent, but there seems to be a nod, or at least a coincidental choice, that bears acknowledging.

 

[Galactus123]

Something very odd is happening on the Hype tonight. Several posts seem to have disappeared.

There have been some problems today. I had serious loggin in problem earlier today and some of my posts just dissapeared and now they are back.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Same here. wth is going on?

 

[Spider-Who?]

I've been saying the same thing for ages.

It's no radical change... it's red and blue, has a recognizable spider insignia, webbing design and webshooters... how does it look different to any other incarnation of the Spider-Man suit we've seen in the comics? :\

For me, I think most others here, its not that they changed the costume up that is the problem. Its that the changes that were made are ugly.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't see that as much of a shift. The current film costume seems to be drawing influences specifically from Reilly's suit. From the way in which the gloves feature blue tips, to the exposed web shooters, to the chest spider that has exaggerated legs. They are not to the same extent, but there seems to be a nod, or at least a coincidental choice, that bears acknowledging.

Part of me thinks they would have been better off making it the Reily costume right off the bat. Because I agree that it does seem to be taking at least an influence from it, but I think some of the changes aren't quite as aesthetically pleasing as the Reily suit.

 

[©KAW]

For me, I think most others here, its not that they changed the costume up that is the problem. Its that the changes that were made are ugly.

Nah, it's that they changed the classic costume, period. You change the classic suit, and geeks are gonna go ga-ga. Hell, I did when they painted the classic suit black and called it the symbiote suit. Welcome to the wonderful world of fanboys.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Well my post just appeared again on the previous page. So odd.

Anyway, I noticed that the movie costume is like a cross between 2099 and ultimate Spidey.

 

[Immortalfire]

There have been some problems today. I had serious loggin in problem earlier today and some of my posts just dissapeared and now they are back.

Its the beginning of the end...

 

[The Riddler]

Unless this entire film is focused entirely on his shoes, close up, slo-mo HD and filmed with an Imax camera...


I could honestly care less.

you mean you "couldn't honestly care less" since your original statement implied you did care.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

The poll at the top of the page just totally sums up for me how ridiculous this whole thread is. Some of the most narrow minded thinking possible, I even find it insulting to the whole creative process that it can essentially be dumbed down to that. Like film makers consciously decide to make a 'bad' costume. Ridiculous.

 

[Ajendo]

Part of me thinks they would have been better off making it the Reily costume right off the bat. Because I agree that it does seem to be taking at least an influence from it, but I think some of the changes aren't quite as aesthetically pleasing as the Reily suit.

Can you imagine all the crazy speculation that would ignite? People losing their minds, ranting on about how we're getting the clone saga and other bull crap suggestions. I like Reily's spidey costume but this place would be a nut house more so than usual had we got it.

 

[©KAW]

People losing their minds, ranting on about how we're getting the clone saga and other bull crap suggestions.

It would be a mad house.

 

[Immortalfire]

The poll at the top of the page just totally sums up for me how ridiculous this whole thread is. Some of the most narrow minded thinking possible, I even find it insulting to the whole creative process that it can essentially be dumbed down to that. Like film makers consciously decide to make a 'bad' costume. Ridiculous.

Those were the two most discussed points when said poll was made. Mainly due to those who claimed Peter needs a cheap, easy to rip suit in the name of "realism"

 

[Marx]

This whole realism thing is a double-edged sword. Just because Christopher Nolan grounded a man with no superpowers (Batman) into some sense of pseudo-realism, doesn't mean that everything other superhero needs to be.

 

[Alchemyst]

This whole realism thing is a double-edged sword. Just because Christopher Nolan grounded a man with no superpowers (Batman) into some sense of pseudo-realism, doesn't mean that everything other superhero needs to be.

I agree, but Hollywood looked at it like Superheroes + Realism = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. They can't keep "The Dark Knight" out of their mouths during board meetings. They're basically using it as the framework for every superhero, Plastic Man grounded in realism "how would the world react to a man who has plastic properties? Why does he stretch? is it emotional when he does this?"

 

[Wolvieboy17]

At the same time though, people on these forums tend to swing massively in the other direction, and disregard realism altogether. "They've got SUPERPOWERS dude, it's all about suspension of disbelief!"

There needs to be a balance.

 

[KalMart]

I agree, but Hollywood looked at it like Superheroes + Realism = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. They can't keep "The Dark Knight" out of their mouths during board meetings. They're basically using it as the framework for every superhero, Plastic Man grounded in realism "how would the world react to a man who has plastic properties? Why does he stretch? is it emotional when he does this?"

If that really is what they're saying, then they're obviously misconstruing the meaning of the term as it applies to Nolan's Batman movies. It's just an aspect, and a particular creative choice...it's not a magic formula. It's almost like looking at Borat and then saying 'we should do all of our comedies documentary-style'.

It's certainly not a clear approach I see in the upcoming GL, XMen, or Thor movies...or C.A. and Spiderman for that matter.

 

[KalMart]

At the same time though, people on these forums tend to swing massively in the other direction, and disregard realism altogether. "They've got SUPERPOWERS dude, it's all about suspension of disbelief!"

There needs to be a balance.

Yeah...I try to put it as a 'reference of plausibility' for a particular approach. And some characters/stories lend themselves differently to different references, if you will.

 

[Immortalfire]

I agree, but Hollywood looked at it like Superheroes + Realism = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. They can't keep "The Dark Knight" out of their mouths during board meetings. They're basically using it as the framework for every superhero, Plastic Man grounded in realism "how would the world react to a man who has plastic properties? Why does he stretch? is it emotional when he does this?"

 

[Wolvieboy17]

If that really is what they're saying, then they're obviously misconstruing the meaning of the term as it applies to Nolan's Batman movies. It's just an aspect, and a particular creative choice...it's not a magic formula. It's almost like looking at Borat and then saying 'we should do all of our comedies documentary-style'.

It's certainly not a clear approach I see in the upcoming GL, XMen, or Thor movies...or C.A. and Spiderman for that matter.

But all of these movies did make concessions to help sell the contextual realism. Cap was given a costume that seemed more practical for a WWII period piece, in X-Men 1 and 2 the costumes were more played down, and they weren't in them that often anyway. Same with Thor, by changing the nature of the Asgardians to something slightly more sci-fi than fantasy it fit better into the already esatblished tone of the MCU. Also in all of these films, the 'realism' as it were is also present in the tone of the whole world. Sure these characters have extraordinary abilities, but the world they inhabit is a very literal, real world, and from their reactions to these individuals, and seeing the heroes trying to exist in that world, it builds a layer of it's own film realism.

That's the difference between say Batman Begins and Batman and Robin. Obviously there was alot wrong with B and R, but it never felt like a real place. Outside of Wayne Manor, everything in gotham felt silly, extras overplayed everything, and everything was too bright and colourful. It makes it harder to believe something out of the ordinary when EVERYTHING feels out of the ordinary.

 

[Arach Knight]

But all of these movies did make concessions to help sell the contextual realism. Cap was given a costume that seemed more practical for a WWII period piece, in X-Men 1 and 2 the costumes were more played down, and they weren't in them that often anyway. Same with Thor, by changing the nature of the Asgardians to something slightly more sci-fi than fantasy it fit better into the already esatblished tone of the MCU. Also in all of these films, the 'realism' as it were is also present in the tone of the whole world. Sure these characters have extraordinary abilities, but the world they inhabit is a very literal, real world, and from their reactions to these individuals, and seeing the heroes trying to exist in that world, it builds a layer of it's own film realism.

That's the difference between say Batman Begins and Batman and Robin. Obviously there was alot wrong with B and R, but it never felt like a real place. Outside of Wayne Manor, everything in gotham felt silly, extras overplayed everything, and everything was too bright and colourful. It makes it harder to believe something out of the ordinary when EVERYTHING feels out of the ordinary.

Well done. I do think that people on this forum over react to the word, "realism," which is why I prefer plausibility or believability. One of the more brilliant moments of the first X-Men film, was when Cyclops commented, "would you rather be wearing yellow spandex?" Having the X-Men wear leather uniforms made their outfits seem very utilitarian. We can see a similar rhetorical move in which Thor tells Natalie Portman's character that what we call science, his people call magic. We have already been exposed to plausibility in various comic movies. No one bothers to mention this though, until the advent of The Dark Knight. With everyone all over Nolan's jock, I can understand how it rubs people the wrong way when everyone thinks all comic films should be "Nolanized." But in all truth, we have been given plausible (realism) film making for a long time now in this genre.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I agree, but Hollywood looked at it like Superheroes + Realism = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. They can't keep "The Dark Knight" out of their mouths during board meetings. They're basically using it as the framework for every superhero, Plastic Man grounded in realism "how would the world react to a man who has plastic properties? Why does he stretch? is it emotional when he does this?"

LMAO! t:

 

[Infinity9999x]

Can you imagine all the crazy speculation that would ignite? People losing their minds, ranting on about how we're getting the clone saga and other bull crap suggestions. I like Reily's spidey costume but this place would be a nut house more so than usual had we got it.

God....that would have been hilarious.

 

[Alchemyst]

But all of these movies did make concessions to help sell the contextual realism. Cap was given a costume that seemed more practical for a WWII period piece, in X-Men 1 and 2 the costumes were more played down, and they weren't in them that often anyway. Same with Thor, by changing the nature of the Asgardians to something slightly more sci-fi than fantasy it fit better into the already esatblished tone of the MCU. Also in all of these films, the 'realism' as it were is also present in the tone of the whole world. Sure these characters have extraordinary abilities, but the world they inhabit is a very literal, real world, and from their reactions to these individuals, and seeing the heroes trying to exist in that world, it builds a layer of it's own film realism.

That's the difference between say Batman Begins and Batman and Robin. Obviously there was alot wrong with B and R, but it never felt like a real place. Outside of Wayne Manor, everything in gotham felt silly, extras overplayed everything, and everything was too bright and colourful. It makes it harder to believe something out of the ordinary when EVERYTHING feels out of the ordinary.

I found it hard to believe in Batman and Robin that Bruce Wayne's parents got killed in Schumacher's Gotham City. Even the dirtiest parts of that city were laced with neon lights and glow in the dark paint, so that tells you even vandals had some sort of style.

 

[Spider-Who?]

you mean you "couldn't honestly care less" since your original statement implied you did care.

You know what I find more annoying than people saying "I could care less"? People pushing their glasses back up the bridge of their nose and saying "actually, what you meant to say is....you could not care less." What is it with people feeling the need to correct this all the time? Of all the things....It doesn't matter what the rest of the post says; if there's no "'nt" there, forget it. The Declaration of Independence would be null and void if Jefferson wrote "could care less". Does it empower you in some weird way? Is there some sort of grammatically-centered fetish out there that I'm excluded from?

We all get what people are trying to say. There really isn't a need to go out of one's way to correct it. It doesn't make you look nearly as smart or cool as you think it does.