Whats less realistic? Sandman or webshooters?

Discussion in 'Spider-Man 1, 2 & 3' started by blind_fury, Mar 29, 2005.

?

Which is less realistic?

  1. The Sandman

  2. A teenage prodigy making synthetic webbing

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. blind_fury

    blind_fury Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Raimi's excuse for not using webshooters was realism. A teenager couldnt create something a major corporation hasnt made (coughnapstercough). Well now he may be using Sandman, one of the least realistic villians in marvel universe. Does that mean we'll see synthetic webbing in Peter Parker's future as well? hmmmm.
     
  2. Silver Sable

    Silver Sable Wild Pack Commander

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    27,576
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both seem less realistic but especially the Sand-Man thingy
     
  3. Andrew

    Andrew Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    8,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought he didnt use mechanical webshooters because he thought it would be too difficult to explain how they work to the general public :confused:
     
  4. blind_fury

    blind_fury Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a poor excuse. Simply showing Parker calibrating and testing a webshooter wouldve explained that in less than 2 minutes!
     
  5. Danalys

    Danalys Sol Invictus

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    12,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    that 2 minutes would have been cut for pacing if it'd been shot. In the spider-man film universe sandman is actually morer realistic. since major biological changes have happened and were essential. a small device capable of unleasing webbing at such force isn't. in the movie universe it's more realistic to have biological solutions to the problem of webbing. which is completely impossible anyway. but so are spider powers. the movie world has had advanced technology in it but it was the result of many years of work. not some thing knocked together in a few weeks. like webshooters would be. they also required massive investment. peter hasn't got that either to create webshooters.
     
  6. Visionary

    Visionary Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    16,080
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's fiction people, in the realm of fiction all things are possible. But not if the director/writer(s) DON'T want them to be.

    The horse is dead...please stop beating him.:)
     
  7. Danalys

    Danalys Sol Invictus

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    12,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    in fiction you have logical consitancy with in the bounderies of the fiction. the spider-man movies are taking as few fictional elements as possible then running with them. powers from spider bites was a fictional element that could explain web shooting. so why add another to explain what can already be explained.
     
  8. ultimatefan

    ultimatefan The Batman must come back

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Messages:
    38,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sandman isn´t any more absurd than a kid being bitten by a spider and getting superpowers... The thing with the webshooters is simply Peter was just an unprivileged teenager, plus it´d take more time to show him developing the chemical webs, the shooters, etc. If you say it comes from government or a megacorporation it becomes easier to throw in the pseudoscience.
     
  9. TheSaintofKillers

    TheSaintofKillers Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, well, the minute Raimi decided that webshooters weren't realistic enough in a SPIDER-MAN movie, he kind of shot himself in the foot.

    Especially since his first movie felt like such a big saturday cartoon.
     
  10. Caliber

    Caliber Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    10,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sand Man is less realistic.
     
  11. Spider-Fan

    Spider-Fan SHHFFL 2014 Champion

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    52,225
    Likes Received:
    3,159
    Still on the webshooters? It seems like people are looking for excuses to make webshooter threads lately. What is done is done guys, deal with it.
     
  12. Boom

    Boom I got nothin'

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    45,255
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    Yes. In fact, I will be on them until the day they announce that the webshooters will be included in a new Spider-Man movie.

    It's a long wait, I know. Just wanted to answer your question :).
     
  13. DDRSkata

    DDRSkata Wu Tang Killa Bee

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    11,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    The webshooters are definitely more realistic than Sandman, which is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of them using Sandman as the villain.
     
  14. Visionary

    Visionary Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    16,080
    Likes Received:
    0
  15. pdb781

    pdb781 Funk, yeah...

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    but a scientist creating large metallic arms which connect to his spinal column in order to contain the energy released from a made-up metal is also unrealistic.
     
  16. blind_fury

    blind_fury Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do you assume Parker testing his webshooters would be cut? It would fit in the movie just as well as the scene where Tobey Maguire shoots organic webbing all over his room.
    What about Dr. Ock? His powers werent biological, they were mechanical. The movies allowed for mechanical marvels such as Green Goblin's glider and Dr.Ock's mechanical tentacles, I dont see what so absurd about a webshooting device.
    Just like Sam Raimi, you underestimate Peter Parker's skill and resourcefullness. Parker is smarter than you and me. He routinely matches wits with mad scientist and evil geniuses. He can whip up a special web formula to counter some villians special power in minutes. If you made a movie about Sherlock Holmes would you dumb down the character to make him more believable? No, that would defeat the purpose of telling the story.

    Parker created the webshooters and webbing formula in days. That what the character is capable of. He's not your average teenager as the movies would have you believe.

    Peter Parker makes a million dollar costume without any knowledge of tailorship and the audience believes it right away. Just like time travel in the "Back to the Future" films people accept science-fiction because its fun and imaginative. A time traveling car is silly, but the fact that its a cool idea causes ppl to go along with it. The truth is the movie universe allowed the quick invention of webshooters by a teenager. It doesnt require some elaborate fantasy world. The idea just simply needed to be introduced and the audience would happily go along for the ride.
     
  17. Boom

    Boom I got nothin'

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    45,255
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    You, sir, get two thumbs up.

    :up::up:
     
  18. Mister Sinister

    Mister Sinister Picture of Paul McCartney

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    Messages:
    6,728
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's fantasy, you don't need to believe it.
     
  19. ultimatefan

    ultimatefan The Batman must come back

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Messages:
    38,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    It´s not a matter of underestimating Peter´s skills, is the resources to make something like chemical web are way beyond his, a project like that takes a lot of time and a lot of money. Even if he created it, he´d be so beyond his years that there´d be no reason why he wouldn´t already be a PHD and rich too. Peter´s not Reed Richards, he´s not the kinda character who keeps inventing revolutionary stuff, he´s mostly portrayed in comics as a science whiz, but not on the supergenius level.

    The costume is expensive, but it´s not supposed to be perceived as such. in the context of the movie, it´s supposed to be perceived as plain spandex with raised webbing and lenses, the padded muscles, the custom fit cast making, the multiple suits, none of that is taken into the equation. It´s a simpler illusion. Plus the movies have made clear that Peter is a science whiz, it´s nothing more than the geeks fetiche obsession with the shooters. Spider-Man shoots his webs and he´s a science lover. That´s all I really care about.
     
  20. Mr. Socko

    Mr. Socko Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    23,329
    Likes Received:
    0
    thats an even poorer excuse, when was Spiderman all about realism?

    btw, even though It's a bad excuse I still like th organic web better
     
  21. GoldGoblin

    GoldGoblin Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    14,914
    Likes Received:
    11
    Webshooters are less realistic.
     
  22. LordSimen

    LordSimen Registered

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bleh. Sandman is less realistic, but I don't care. It's an adaptation, changes like this are known to happen. I don't mind it, no big deal. Doesn't take anything away.
     
  23. Arcturus

    Arcturus Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Messages:
    12,481
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sandman, of course.
     
  24. scifiwolf

    scifiwolf Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,131
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually, you all are wrong. Raimi didn't do the organic webbing, Jim Cameron did. His reason was that it seemed silly to get all these atributes of spiders and be shortchanged one. Personally, I like this logic and the organic webbing.

    Now, given the argument between manufactured web shooters and Sandman, I'd say Sandman is less realistic. The key to great science fiction is the possibility of the fiction becoming a reality. Scientists are right on the cusp of replicating spider silk, and have already come up with tape to simulate the grip of gecko's feet (the area of a fingertip could support several hundred poupnds). A person being able to alter their atomic structure and manipulating inanimate matter in such a way is fun, but impossible.
     
  25. blind_fury

    blind_fury Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did James Cameron direct Spider-man? No. So how can you blame him for organics?

    Spider-man has only two eyes and four limbs. He's 100% human. He wasnt meant to have spider physiology. Being short changed an ability wasnt a "silly" misstep on Stan Lee's part. It was a stroke of genius. Peter Parker must complete his spider abilities using his human intelligence. Its man vs nature. It's a great idea. An idea that shouldve been shared with millions of movie goers who were instead short changed themselves.

    Stan Lee could've EASILY came up with organics. Hell, a four year old could've came up with organics.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"