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

[Immortalfire]

As a veteran of this site, I can tell you word battles raged over costumes from X-Men to now..have been incredible.

 

[roach]

go back and try to find the thread when the Nolan Joker pic first got released

 

[Wolvieboy17]

You know what, I actually like the costume. Sure it's different from the Raimi classic faithful, but this strikes me as the same as the difference between the Ultimate universe and the 616 universe, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it's good to have a different version of things. And honestly, there are a few tweaks and differences, but if you were watching the film and seeing Spidey swinging around and jumping off thugs heads whilst dropping quips, would you still be focusing on the blue fingers or shoes or would you think "Awesome, it's Spidey!"

 

[roach]

Costumes are the bread and butter of this genre...if the new movie costume was a wifebeater and stocking over the head would we sit there and say "Awesome, it's Spidey".
No this design isnt that drastic.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

And in reading those last few posts, i'm aware how many times someone has said exactly what I just did or something similar and met no agreement from anyone. Just like the Cap costume thread, right Roach?

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

THANK YOU.

I really wish Hollywood would get over this idea of keeping superhero/comic adaptations "real". It's a movie about radioactive spider bite giving a kid super strength and wall crawling ability, who faces off against the likes of a humanoid lizard, a doc with mechanical tentacles, and a crazed loon on a hoverboard! You pretty much forfeit the right to "realism" on that those concepts alone. Geez.

Agreed. And the only way to make that realistic is...nope...I don't want to think about it.

 

[roach]

And in reading those last few posts, i'm aware how many times someone has said exactly what I just did or something similar and met no agreement from anyone. Just like the Cap costume thread, right Roach?

I plead the fiftht:

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I think I enjoy costume threads only before any image of a costume has actually been released. Then it's fun and creative, people suggesting things. Afterwards, it's a dozen people arguing something that they could never, possibly change or have an impact on, after it already exists.

 

[Immortalfire]

I plead the fiftht:

Constitutional protection does not apply on the Hype. You must answer him.

 

[roach]

I think I enjoy costume threads only before any image of a costume has actually been released. Then it's fun and creative, people suggesting things. Afterwards, it's a dozen people arguing something that they could never, possibly change or have an impact on, after it already exists.

hence why I believe they are wastes of time....and it was my experiences in the Cap costume thread that lead me to this conclusion. I used to be so upset from that thread.

 

[roach]

Constitutional protection does not apply on the Hype. You must answer him.

I plead the fif...1,2,3,4..FIF!!!!!!

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, me too... Then again, I think I get way too involved in some of these topics. Do you ever get the impression that if a group of us were having these discussions in person it would never get as heated as it does?

 

[roach]

Yeah, me too... Then again, I think I get way too involved in some of these topics. Do you ever get the impression that if a group of us were having these discussions in person it would never get as heated as it does?

yeah i could see that...I just think I am getting more opinionated in my old age...or that I am so close to graduating from film school that I feel my vision of certain movies should be the way movie makers should take

 

[©KAW]

Spidey’s suit is one of the most iconic designs in the comic book world. This is not my opinion; it’s a fact. Yes, there have been several variations of the years, (every long standing comic hero goes through suit changes); but it always comes back to the original design. Because it works. Nothing more needs to be said about it. Now, look at the new suit. Yes, it “is” Spider-Man, but with heavy design changes. Personally, I’m one of the people who welcome a director’s ability to take liberties with a costume, so long as the changes made are GOOD changes. IMO, these changes are NOT good.

Who is saying this? Go to the forums of every superhero movie that comes out, and you'll see half of the fans hating the costume design, and half of them loving it. Spider-Man, Captain America, Daredevil, X-Men, Batman, Green Lantern, Thor, Superman, etc - every comic book movie has fans who hate the director's take on the suit. NO superhero movie "gets a pass". And to suggest otherwise is just asinine.

Batman's costume is equally as iconic as Spider-Man's, even more so, sense he has 30 years on Spider-Man. Hell, Batman's logo is as well-known as Spider-Man himself, you don't even need so show Bat's face. Yet, they changed it and his costume. How much was it a problem for The Dark Knight on any level, none?

Okay, fair enough, let's go with that assessment and say there's half/half (love/hate) for other heroes costumes. I stand corrected.

 

[©KAW]

THANK YOU.

I really wish Hollywood would get over this idea of keeping superhero/comic adaptations "real". It's a movie about radioactive spider bite giving a kid super strength and wall crawling ability, who faces off against the likes of a humanoid lizard, a doc with mechanical tentacles, and a crazed loon on a hoverboard! You pretty much forfeit the right to "realism" on that those concepts alone. Geez.

Who said anything about Spider-Man having realism?

 

[Spider-Who?]

Batman's costume is equally as iconic as Spider-Man's, even more so, sense he has 30 years on Spider-Man. Hell, Batman's logo is as well-known as Spider-Man himself, you don't even need so show Bat's face. Yet, they changed it and his costume. How much was it a problem for The Dark Knight on any level, none?

Granted there is a certain degree of fallible opinion nestled into this, but search for polls and 9 times out of 10, Spider-Man’s costume is listed as the most iconic and popular. If there is a costume placed ahead of him, its Superman. But this isn’t really the point.

How much was it a problem for The Dark Knight on any level, none?

I’m going to assume (due to the poor grammar) that you’re asking “How much of an issue were the changes to Batman’s costume?” and then answering your own question: “None.” If that’s the case, no, the answer is not “None”, because there are clearly people who hate TDK’s suit. So yes, it is an issue. Your lack of any problems with the changes (if any) does not negate someone else’s feelings on the suit.

This, I think is a more appropriate question: “Why is it more of an issue to some people that Spider-Man’s suit is changed, verses Batman’s suit?”

Batman’s comic suit is overly simple. A hood. A cape. Underwear, gloves, boot and belt. There are no finer details or areas of visual interest in Batman’s suit. If they made an exact replica of the classic Batman costume, it would come across as incredibly boring. Granted, he’s typically in shadow much of the time (more on that later); but from a film making standpoint, you want to have something for the light and shadow to play on so the costume doesn’t appear so flat. In other words, more design adjustments are called for to make the costume visually appealing on screen.

With the above in mind, there is already plenty of nice design aspects to Spider-Man’s costume, that far less adjustment is needed to transition the costume to live action. What changes are made (in comparison to changes needed for Batman) or more in the nature to add small touches or “flair” if you will, as opposed to actual heavy improvements. In other words, very little changes are needed, and therefore very little changes are expected by fans.

Batman is a character who is largely kept in shadow, and therefore not much of his costume is seen, making disagreeable design changes easily missed and covered up. If you can’t see it, there isn’t anything to complain about.

Spider-Man is a character who does not live in the shadows and spend most of his time growling at criminals in the dark. This means that his costume, and all its design changes for better or for worse, are far easier to see and if the design is poor, it will stick out like a sore thumb. If you can see it, than it’ll bug the ever living crap out of you.

 

[Alchemyst]

THANK YOU.

I really wish Hollywood would get over this idea of keeping superhero/comic adaptations "real". It's a movie about radioactive spider bite giving a kid super strength and wall crawling ability, who faces off against the likes of a humanoid lizard, a doc with mechanical tentacles, and a crazed loon on a hoverboard! You pretty much forfeit the right to "realism" on that those concepts alone. Geez.

I agree with you, but I'm assuming the way Hollywood looks at it like that was the key to TDK, so any other comic book adaptation can have the same applied to it and generate equal or greater amounts of success. That doesn't work with every hero out there. Spider-Man's situation is purely way out in left field, so trying to add realism to something as unreal as that is just ridiculous. Like I stated once before, we're not sure of the circumstances Marc Webb was put under, Sony may have suggested that he change a few things with the costume to differentiate it.

 

[Troy_Parker]

So wuts this about Tobey Maguire not being in Spider-Man 4

 

[Spider-Who?]

oh, you.

 

[Mercurius]

But who cares if the movie is good? You could make that judgement of a movie like TDK before actually seeing it, with the difference in portrayal of Joker and the costume and the Batmobile. As far as judging how 'true' in heart and spirit to the comic the film actually is, we have to actually see the movie first. And if it accomplishes that, I'll be thrilled. If Spidey is every bit the smart, switched on, smack talking and funny character i've loved for years (and who was absent from the Raimi movies) then i'd take not only silver shoes but a Silver V shaped space suit.


Hi Wolvie, sorry for the late answer.

Well, what you said above forgets 1 important thing: the changes Nolan introduced were motivated.

The Joker, as we know now, needed that punk outfit, the greasy hair and all. If he was a stilted flamboyant there would be no possibility of telling that story.

Now: with the exception of the nice cowl and the finally flexible neck, Batman's costume is a problem yet. Everybody knows that.

I daresay Nolan himself knows that: he's put Bats in the very dark the whole movie, so that nobody would take notice of those stupid and over the top details all over.

Spidey's new horribilia has no reason whatsoever: or do you want to tell me the silver shoes will be explained so that we all will just go "ahhhnn, of course..."?

I can bet we won't. Silver is just a crappy idea of a happy costume designer that just could not have a better idea. And so those annoying blue fingers, and speedo stripes along his legs.

They can write and act Spidey to perfection: I will enjoy it and say, as the most part of the thoughtful audience: "but what a darned nasty costume, mate".

 

[Alchemyst]

But who cares if the movie is good? You could make that judgement of a movie like TDK before actually seeing it, with the difference in portrayal of Joker and the costume and the Batmobile. As far as judging how 'true' in heart and spirit to the comic the film actually is, we have to actually see the movie first. And if it accomplishes that, I'll be thrilled. If Spidey is every bit the smart, switched on, smack talking and funny character i've loved for years (and who was absent from the Raimi movies) then i'd take not only silver shoes but a Silver V shaped space suit.


Hi Wolvie, sorry for the late answer.

Well, what you said above forgets 1 important thing: the changes Nolan introduced were motivated.

The Joker, as we know now, needed that punk outfit, the greasy hair and all. If he was a stilted flamboyant there would be no possibility of telling that story.

Now: with the exception of the nice cowl and the finally flexible neck, Batman's costume is a problem yet. Everybody knows that.

I daresay Nolan himself knows that: he's put Bats in the very dark the whole movie, so that nobody would take notice of those stupid and over the top details all over.

Spidey's new horribilia has no reason whatsoever: or do you want to tell me the silver shoes will be explained so that we all will just go "ahhhnn, of course..."?

I can bet we won't. Silver is just a crappy idea of a happy costume designer that just could not have a better idea. And so those annoying blue fingers, and speedo stripes along his legs.

They can write and act Spidey to perfection: I will enjoy it and say, as the most part of the thoughtful audience: "but what a darned nasty costume, mate".

we've only seen set pics and video, neither one giving as much justice as the final product. You should just wait until a trailer is released so you can see it in action before you immediately declare the suit as a failure. Saying the silver strips on his boots is a little over the top, we're talking about a portion of his body that you will never see not in motion, he's gonna be moving all over the place, so much to the point where you would have very little time to pay attention to it. I disagree when you say Nolan put Batman in the dark to hide the costume, he merely wanted Batman to be a shadowy figure, Batman employs alot of stealth which would call for him to be shrouded in darkness and not fully visible. The previous Batman films had his suit take on a muscular approach that didn't match up with the body type of the given actor, Nolan made it armored to fit in the realm of the world he crafted for Batman.

 

[Mercurius]

we've only seen set pics and video, neither one giving as much justice as the final product. You should just wait until a trailer is released so you can see it in action before you immediately declare the suit as a failure. Saying the silver strips on his boots is a little over the top, we're talking about a portion of his body that you will never see not in motion, he's gonna be moving all over the place, so much to the point where you would have very little time to pay attention to it. I disagree when you say Nolan put Batman in the dark to hide the costume, he merely wanted Batman to be a shadowy figure, Batman employs alot of stealth which would call for him to be shrouded in darkness and not fully visible.

The problem, Alchemyst, is exactly the "you will never see in motion" idea.

I had no visual worries once I saw the costume for the Raimi movies. It was clearly a landmark in adapting superhero costumes.

If we need this last resource of "will never see it" it pretty much means "it's crap, but we won't see it".

I want it to be incredibly good, and to correct the writing mistakes of the previous trilogy.

I don't want a substitution of mistakes: now we have a great script, but a half bad costume.

PS: ok, so we disagree on the reasons why Nolan kept him cocealed. Of course he is a shadowy character, but why making such a detailed costume not to show it? I think Nolan noticed the problem.

 

[©KAW]

Granted there is a certain degree of fallible opinion nestled into this, but search for polls and 9 times out of 10, Spider-Man’s costume is listed as the most iconic and popular. If there is a costume placed ahead of him, its Superman. But this isn’t really the point.

Who on this planet is going to know the design of Spider-Man's suit, but not know the design of Batman's? They're all popular and subject to have their suit changed.

I’m going to assume (due to the poor grammar) that you’re asking “How much of an issue were the changes to Batman’s costume?” and then answering your own question: “None.” If that’s the case, no, the answer is not “None”, because there are clearly people who hate TDK’s suit. So yes, it is an issue. Your lack of any problems with the changes (if any) does not negate someone else’s feelings on the suit.

No Grammar Teacher, that's not what I meant. The changes in the Batman's suit took nothing away from the quality of the overall film, and kindly kicking the Spider-Man films ass (even with Spidey wearing his classic suit), and becoming the comic book movie to beat proves that. They got the Spider-Man suit right, but left out the quality, poor souls.

This, I think is a more appropriate question: “Why is it more of an issue to some people that Spider-Man’s suit is changed, verses Batman’s suit?”

Batman’s comic suit is overly simple. A hood. A cape. Underwear, gloves, boot and belt. There are no finer details or areas of visual interest in Batman’s suit. If they made an exact replica of the classic Batman costume, it would come across as incredibly boring. Granted, he’s typically in shadow much of the time (more on that later); but from a film making standpoint, you want to have something for the light and shadow to play on so the costume doesn’t appear so flat. In other words, more design adjustments are called for to make the costume visually appealing on screen.

Excuses...excuses, in that case, we should never get a classic Superman suit either. Cape, logo, boots, underwear...yeah it's all boring. Let's just throw in the towel for all of the classic icons suits. Well, except Spider-Man's of course, because out of the three superhero icons, he's special.

With the above in mind, there is already plenty of nice design aspects to Spider-Man’s costume, that far less adjustment is needed to transition the costume to live action. What changes are made (in comparison to changes needed for Batman) or more in the nature to add small touches or “flair” if you will, as opposed to actual heavy improvements. In other words, very little changes are needed, and therefore very little changes are expected by fans.

Uh, you're not saying anything here but, don't make changes to Spider-Man's classic suit, but whomever is free to make changes to Batman's, because you think his suit is flat and boring. Sorry to tell you this, but Marvel is okay with changing their characters classic suits (amongst other things). Just take a look at their movies. The problem is, you thought Spider-Man's costume was excluded.

Batman is a character who is largely kept in shadow, and therefore not much of his costume is seen, making disagreeable design changes easily missed and covered up. If you can’t see it, there isn’t anything to complain about.

This is freakin' funny, this better be a joke!

No, I see Nolan's poorly designed Tim Burton-ish Batman suit just fine, the shadows can't hide it from me or anyone else. We're wearing night-vision classes, lol.t:

Spider-Man is a character who does not live in the shadows and spend most of his time growling at criminals in the dark. This means that his costume, and all its design changes for better or for worse, are far easier to see and if the design is poor, it will stick out like a sore thumb. If you can see it, than it’ll bug the ever living crap out of you.

Guess what, you're going to see his suit (like it or not) in broad daylight, because it's not changing one way or the other--not for the first film. However, I do believe that with enough fanboyish outcry, we can get the suit changed to the classic duds for the sequel. Just like we did the mechanical web-shooters, oh wait, that took a decade. Never mind.

 

[©KAW]

Of course he is a shadowy character, but why making such a detailed costume not to show it? I think Nolan noticed the problem.

Really, he noticed the problem, but Bat's will be wearing the suit again in TDKR. I think Nolan likes his redesigned suit very much. And as long as he brings the quality (which is lacking in this genre), he can keep it.

 

[Arach Knight]

THANK YOU.

I really wish Hollywood would get over this idea of keeping superhero/comic adaptations "real". It's a movie about radioactive spider bite giving a kid super strength and wall crawling ability, who faces off against the likes of a humanoid lizard, a doc with mechanical tentacles, and a crazed loon on a hoverboard! You pretty much forfeit the right to "realism" on that those concepts alone. Geez.

I don't think realism is the term that we should be striving for. "Believable" is more apt. A story must be believable in and of itself, in order for the audience to suspend their disbelief. Handling a character in such a fashion that it seems like what a real person would act that same way, is not the same as dealing with what is possible. Of course radioactive spider bites and metal tentacled villains are preposterous, but they function within the established order.

For instance, in the Batman films, Batman wears armor. This is not unlike the comic version, however we know that armor in the real world, looks like armor. Unless Batman starts using UMF from the Marvel universe, it can be assumed that his armor would have to be visible in order to be believable.

With that said, I like the fact that we can see the web shooters. If the silver lined soles are part of the costume, is it so hard to imagine that a person would design a costume with a certain level of utility rather than purely for style? That is something that I loved about the Raimi film's portrayal of the Green Goblin. The suit itself was designed for protective purposes, and the helmet was clearly a nod to aerodynamic design in order to help steer the glider, as well as a brilliant symbolism of the way in which masks can transform a figure (a theme that reappears when Norman talks to himself in the mirror and we see the masks in his home).

Why is it so hard to have a Spidey suit that would be comfortable for the feet? Is it so hard to imagine that even super powered people want to be comfortable? One of the great things about the X-Men films, is that Wolverine's healing factor was never an excuse for him to take punishment without flinching. I loved it when Rogue asked if the claws hurt when they are unsheathed, and Wolverine responded by saying, "every time." To that end, why would Spider-Man be comfortable in socks rather than actual foot wear? Because he takes punches from super powered people? Endurance does not negate sensation.

Of course, this is all predicated upon the assumption that the silver lined soles are even permanent. There is so much conjecture in this thread. It is sad really. Amateaurs are in this thread, assuming that digital editing can't return the boots to normal, or that the shoes aren't simply for stunt purposes. Considering that the silver soles are not even featured in the promotional pictcure, and the only time we see them are in unauthorized photos, you would imagine that people would exercise a bit more restraint before passing final judgment.

At least wait for a trailer before we begin criticizing (e.g. the official trailer for GL that clearly shows the poorly rendered CG mask and poorly proportioned CG rendering of Ryan Reynolds in the costume, which fails to match his real body proportions). In the one official photo we have, you can't even see the silver unless engage in photo editing. And even then, that detracts from the very focus of the intention of the photographer's composition. Light sources and poses are chosen with purpose, not coincidence. This is as bad as when everyone was judging X-Men Origins on the unfinished work print. Granted, the final product was still questionable, but a project deserves the benefit of the doubt until you can see exactly what will make the final cut.