Whats less realistic? Sandman or webshooters?

[blind_fury]

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.

 

[Silver Sable]

Both seem less realistic but especially the Sand-Man thingy

 

[Andrew]

I thought he didnt use mechanical webshooters because he thought it would be too difficult to explain how they work to the general public

 

[blind_fury]

I thought he didnt use mechanical webshooters because he thought it would be too difficult to explain how they work to the general public

That's a poor excuse. Simply showing Parker calibrating and testing a webshooter wouldve explained that in less than 2 minutes!

 

[Danalys]

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.

 

[Visionary]

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.

 

[Danalys]

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.

 

[ultimatefan]

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.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

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.

 

[Caliber]

Sand Man is less realistic.

 

[Spider-Fan]

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.

 

[Boom]

Still on the webshooters?

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 .

 

[DDRSkata]

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.

 

[Visionary]

Not me.

 

[pdb781]

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.

 

[blind_fury]

that 2 minutes would have been cut for pacing if it'd been shot.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Boom]

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.

You, sir, get two thumbs up.

 

[Mister Sinister]

It's fantasy, you don't need to believe it.

 

[ultimatefan]

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.

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.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Raimi's excuse for not using webshooters was realism

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

 

[GoldGoblin]

Webshooters are less realistic.

 

[LordSimen]

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.

 

[Arcturus]

Sandman, of course.

 

[scifiwolf]

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.

 

[blind_fury]

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.

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.