Whats less realistic? Sandman or webshooters?

[ultimatefan]

Your statement in caps there clearly says box office success means its validated by the fans. As we both agreed The Phantom Menace disproves that. It was just your way of somehow trying to prove you are right and validate organics, and discredit those who are more true to the source material. As I've tried to point out to you the film would have been just as successful with mechs (as they were only dealt with a few minutes anyway). Your argument, that particular one, doesn't hold water.



Of course not. Just don't go in and then whine about how TIRED you are of the argument, calling the opposition "pimps". You can't go in and argue and then throw up your hands in expiration because you are rebutted and not declared automatically right.



Dude, you're practically on the Sony payroll.





OK, thats cool. We're all entitled to our opinions. Although, Its pretty safe to say you're fairly liberal in terms of how Spider-man is translated to the screen. (as long as webs don't come out the butt)



You call it a crutch, I call "it" (embracing and rejoicing in a Spidey with organics, no "fire" ie wisecracks etc... and a good Doc Ock) ... blindly accepting anything they spit out.

Look at your sig man.

Again, it says success in general, the word box office wasn´t used. You assumed it. and to assume makes... you know the rest.

I have every right to be tired of an argument that has been repeating itself for years and years. And the right to react to it being regurgitated once again. And I don´t care for being declared automatically right, I just defend my opinions like everyone else here.

No I´m not. I could as well think you´re on another studio´s payroll, considering your attitude...

There are TONS of things I wouldn´t accept in a Spider-Man adaptation... and I think most of them were avoided. How "liberal" I am concerns only me. I think it´s safe to say there´s very little you accept in terms of adapting and making a different interpretation of a character... That´s just not how I see it, sorry.

Call it whatever you like, it´s my opinion and my right. I can as well call thinking pretty much anything that doesn´t go straight from the page to be a bad thing being narrow-minded and nitpicky.

 

[The Green Goblin]

Again, it says success in general, the word box office wasn´t used. You assumed it. and to assume makes... you know the rest.

I have every right to be tired of an argument that has been repeating itself for years and years. And the right to react to it being regurgitated once again. And I don´t care for being declared automatically right, I just defend my opinions like everyone else here.

No I´m not. I could as well think you´re on another studio´s payroll, considering your attitude...

There are TONS of things I wouldn´t accept in a Spider-Man adaptation... and I think most of them were avoided. How "liberal" I am concerns only me. I think it´s safe to say there´s very little you accept in terms of adapting and making a different interpretation of a character... That´s just not how I see it, sorry.

Call it whatever you like, it´s my opinion and my right. I can as well call thinking pretty much anything that doesn´t go straight from the page to be a bad thing being narrow-minded and nitpicky.

Ah, the sound of Ultimatefan backpedaling again. You should have just let it go.

Here's what you said...

Not to me. And not to the majority of fans, as the success of the movies states to.

Come on ... we all know what you *meant* by that. You're saying you and your "majority" are right as evidenced by the movie's "success"; your crutch. Could have just left it with "not to me", and that would be fine but you had to add the "majority" and try to back up the OPINION further with "success". When shown examples of other movie's success not necessarily equaling quality, coupled with the fact films would have done just as well with mechs, you started backpedaling.

I have every right to be tired of an argument that has been repeating itself for years and years. And the right to react to it being regurgitated once again. And I don´t care for being declared automatically right, I just defend my opinions like everyone else here.

This is like Groundhog Day. Same thing over and over. Yep, you got a right to an opinion. Defend away! Just don't dive in and then halfway in whine about how TIRED you are of it. You know ... you got what you wanted, a "different interpretation" of the character. The movie was successful. Why do you feel the need to defend it? Hmmm?

No I´m not. I could as well think you´re on another studio´s payroll, considering your attitude...

Ha Ha, "my attitude", just because I won't worship at Raimi's feet and easily accept what he presents, even though its not really true to the character/characters of Spider-Man? Yeah, I work for WB really and sabotaged them with that stupid Batmobile.

Look at your sig again ".. long time member of ATR (Allegiance to Raimi)..." it would appear your allegiance is to Raimi and not to Spider-Man ... nothing wrong with that, just how it looks from here.

There are TONS of things I wouldn´t accept in a Spider-Man adaptation... and I think most of them were avoided. How "liberal" I am concerns only me. I think it´s safe to say there´s very little you accept in terms of adapting and making a different interpretation of a character... That´s just not how I see it, sorry

You're sort of on record of pretty much accepting *anything* (including Batman driving a Nexel Cup Car and Superman without a cape) right up to and excluding (but just barely ) webs coming out of the ass.

You nailed it on the head though. I do not want a "different interpretation" of a character when it comes to Spider-Man. I want the real deal, not one that just looks like it. Still waiting. And I think you just explained why you're so accepting of things as you, are "open to interpretation". Personally I do not care for the sleepy, not funny, non-wisecracking, lovesick " (all) about a girl", interpretation of Spider-Man. But, as always, I hold out hope for improvement in 3.

And thats pretty much it. I'm not condemning you for your opinion Ultimatefan. What goes against my grain is this idea that since the movies are "successful", they were automatically done right, and that that "success" somehow validates their opinions, eg organics ... It does not. One more time, the movies would have been just as "successful" with mechs. (although there would still be pieces of the heart of the character missing). I still don't see the need, the almost obsession with you, to defend them, especially since you claim to be so TIRED of the subject. But, going back to the root of this argument, I also don't see how you can do a character justice without his trademark. Guess this is where we differ.

*Waits for 'fan to once gain deny he wasn't implying "success of the movies" had anything to do with box office*

 

[screech_turbo]

in the spideyverse, i think both are equally realistic.

 

[ultimatefan]

Ah, the sound of Ultimatefan backpedaling again. You should have just let it go.

Here's what you said...



Come on ... we all know what you *meant* by that. You're saying you and your "majority" are right as evidenced by the movie's "success"; your crutch. Could have just left it with "not to me", and that would be fine but you had to add the "majority" and try to back up the OPINION further with "success". When shown examples of other movie's success not necessarily equaling quality, coupled with the fact films would have done just as well with mechs, you started backpedaling.



This is like Groundhog Day. Same thing over and over. Yep, you got a right to an opinion. Defend away! Just don't dive in and then halfway in whine about how TIRED you are of it. You know ... you got what you wanted, a "different interpretation" of the character. The movie was successful. Why do you feel the need to defend it? Hmmm?



Ha Ha, "my attitude", just because I won't worship at Raimi's feet and easily accept what he presents, even though its not really true to the character/characters of Spider-Man? Yeah, I work for WB really and sabotaged them with that stupid Batmobile.

Look at your sig again ".. long time member of ATR (Allegiance to Raimi)..." it would appear your allegiance is to Raimi and not to Spider-Man ... nothing wrong with that, just how it looks from here.



You're sort of on record of pretty much accepting *anything* (including Batman driving a Nexel Cup Car and Superman without a cape) right up to and excluding (but just barely ) webs coming out of the ass.

You nailed it on the head though. I do not want a "different interpretation" of a character when it comes to Spider-Man. I want the real deal, not one that just looks like it. Still waiting. And I think you just explained why you're so accepting of things as you, are "open to interpretation". Personally I do not care for the sleepy, not funny, non-wisecracking, lovesick " (all) about a girl", interpretation of Spider-Man. But, as always, I hold out hope for improvement in 3.

And thats pretty much it. I'm not condemning you for your opinion Ultimatefan. What goes against my grain is this idea that since the movies are "successful", they were automatically done right, and that that "success" somehow validates their opinions, eg organics ... It does not. One more time, the movies would have been just as "successful" with mechs. (although there would still be pieces of the heart of the character missing). I still don't see the need, the almost obsession with you, to defend them, especially since you claim to be so TIRED of the subject. But, going back to the root of this argument, I also don't see how you can do a character justice without his trademark. Guess this is where we differ.

*Waits for 'fan to once gain deny he wasn't implying "success of the movies" had anything to do with box office*

Success means a lot of things. Approval by most fans is a form of success. Critical acclaim is a form of success. Look any site with Spider-Man fans and you´ll see most of them approve of the movie.

The movie is successful yeah, but the constant bringing back of the same thing again and again here is so insistent, even though it comes from a small minority, that at some point it can be misinterpreted as the opinion of the fandom, even though it´s not. If you people are gonna keep bringing up the same thing again and again, we have the right to defend it again and again.

You have every right not to care about another interpretation of the character, just don´t go bashing and calling "blindly accepting" anyone who just doesn´t happen to agree with you. I´m open to this interpretation of the character, I don´t find him sleepy, not funny, I don´t think trying to make him wisecrack a hundred times in the middle of a fight would work, and romance is a big part of his life since the sixties... That´s just how I see it and all your sarcasm is not gonna change that.

Like I said, I haven´t touched on this subject for months... If we just stop with the sarcastic remarks that aren´t going anywhere anyway and admit we just have different points of view and there´s no need to bash each other for it, I´m gonna stop right here. Be civil and so will I.

 

[The Green Goblin]

Success means a lot of things. Approval by most fans is a form of success. Critical acclaim is a form of success. Look any site with Spider-Man fans and you´ll see most of them approve of the movie.

back back back back back ...

Not even going to ask how you define "approval" or "fan", but apparently you've conducted a world-wide door-to-door survey, since you claim to not be talking about box office success.

The movie is successful yeah, but the constant bringing back of the same thing again and again here is so insistent, even though it comes from a small minority, that at some point it can be misinterpreted as the opinion of the fandom, even though it´s not. If you people are gonna keep bringing up the same thing again and again, we have the right to defend it again and again.

Again with the "you people" like YOU are in some kind of huge majority looking down on the tiny "few" that demand more than a similarity to their hero, JUST because the movies have been successfull. Once again, they did not do well BECAUSE of the organics. OVerall you are still trying to claim some sort of "victory" over so-called traditionalists by wrapping yourself in the success of the movies. Groundhog day again.

You have every right not to care about another interpretation of the character, just don´t go bashing and calling "blindly accepting" anyone who just doesn´t happen to agree with you. I´m open to this interpretation of the character, I don´t find him sleepy, not funny, I don´t think trying to make him wisecrack a hundred times in the middle of a fight would work, and romance is a big part of his life since the sixties... That´s just how I see it and all your sarcasm is not gonna change that.

Actually your quote was DIFFERENT interpretation, which is just a wee bit stronger than "other" interpretation IMO. The 'blindly accepting" may have been unecessary, and I was just poking a little fun pushing it to the extreme. But it does kind of seem that way with you at times to be honest. And again your sig does not help.

Romance, yes, all about ONE girl from cover to cover ... um ... *no*.

Perfectly fine how you see it, just don't use the success and popularity of the films to try and validate your opinions. The films are a success because of Spider-Man, not organics, or mechs. The general movie-going audience is not that familiar with the history and mythos, so they obviously aren't going to know the difference in organics and a Doc Ock who goes good. In 2000/01, there was a HUGE outcry over the organics. Well, it seems Raimi handled them relatively well, that is, by not beating us over the head with them. They were only addressed a few seconds in the cafeteria. Most everyone was able to look past that (me included) and enjoy the film. Just because the outcry died down does not mean some, in their heart of hearts, would not still like to see mechanical web-shooters. It just means Raimi was smart enough to de-emphasize them (compared to what Cameron wanted to do) and overall, make a compelling, entertaining film.

Don't think a "hundred" wisecracks would work in a fight either, but come on now, they can do a better job than what they have and you know it. Its one of the classic parts of the heart of the character I've been talking about. Don't know if its the script, the directing or even some of Tobey (he is a "sleepy" actor IMO) but they can do better. And I don't mean with quantity, but rather with quality.

Like I said, I haven´t touched on this subject for months... If we just stop with the sarcastic remarks that aren´t going anywhere anyway and admit we just have different points of view and there´s no need to bash each other for it, I´m gonna stop right here. Be civil and so will I.

So why did you feel the need to do it now? Do you think that just because the movies are popular and "successful" that the "few" pro-mechs/anti-organics proponents would stop being true to their own beliefs and magically conform to the new establishment. "Oooo, don't dare dis organics or you're a Mr Parker".

Fair enough, I know how TIRED you get. Didn't really see either of us being uncivil, just passionately discussing what we believe in. I do respect your opinion, just not when you attempt to project across the majority (as I pointed out, many of which, do not truly know the difference ie, general movie-goers.

 

[ultimatefan]

back back back back back ...

Not even going to ask how you define "approval" or "fan", but apparently you've conducted a world-wide door-to-door survey, since you claim to not be talking about box office success.



Again with the "you people" like YOU are in some kind of huge majority looking down on the tiny "few" that demand more than a similarity to their hero, JUST because the movies have been successfull. Once again, they did not do well BECAUSE of the organics. OVerall you are still trying to claim some sort of "victory" over so-called traditionalists by wrapping yourself in the success of the movies. Groundhog day again.




Actually your quote was DIFFERENT interpretation, which is just a wee bit stronger than "other" interpretation IMO. The 'blindly accepting" may have been unecessary, and I was just poking a little fun pushing it to the extreme. But it does kind of seem that way with you at times to be honest. And again your sig does not help.

Romance, yes, all about ONE girl from cover to cover ... um ... *no*.

Perfectly fine how you see it, just don't use the success and popularity of the films to try and validate your opinions. The films are a success because of Spider-Man, not organics, or mechs. The general movie-going audience is not that familiar with the history and mythos, so they obviously aren't going to know the difference in organics and a Doc Ock who goes good. In 2000/01, there was a HUGE outcry over the organics. Well, it seems Raimi handled them relatively well, that is, by not beating us over the head with them. They were only addressed a few seconds in the cafeteria. Most everyone was able to look past that (me included) and enjoy the film. Just because the outcry died down does not mean some, in their heart of hearts, would not still like to see mechanical web-shooters. It just means Raimi was smart enough to de-emphasize them (compared to what Cameron wanted to do) and overall, make a compelling, entertaining film.

Don't think a "hundred" wisecracks would work in a fight either, but come on now, they can do a better job than what they have and you know it. Its one of the classic parts of the heart of the character I've been talking about. Don't know if its the script, the directing or even some of Tobey (he is a "sleepy" actor IMO) but they can do better. And I don't mean with quantity, but rather with quality.



So why did you feel the need to do it now? Do you think that just because the movies are popular and "successful" that the "few" pro-mechs/anti-organics proponents would stop being true to their own beliefs and magically conform to the new establishment. "Oooo, don't dare dis organics or you're a Mr Parker".

Fair enough, I know how TIRED you get. Didn't really see either of us being uncivil, just passionately discussing what we believe in. I do respect your opinion, just not when you attempt to project across the majority (as I pointed out, many of which, do not truly know the difference ie, general movie-goers.

It´s not a matter of "conforming", it´s just that nothing has been said here that hasn´t been said a gazillion times already. I heard "the movie would have been successful with the mechs" more times than can be accounted, and it remains something we´ll simply never know anyway.

I think Tobey handles comedy fine. I don´t have a problem with MJ, but the series isn´t over, who says it´ll be always only one girl in his life?

Don´t want me to mention the popularity of the movie, fine, but as far as I have seen, from my humble experience most fans don´t have a major problem with Raimi´s changes. That´s all. We´re fans and we´re passionate, we´re just not all passionate in the exact same way or about the exact same things.

 

[The Green Goblin]

It´s not a matter of "conforming", it´s just that nothing has been said here that hasn´t been said a gazillion times already. I heard "the movie would have been successful with the mechs" more times than can be accounted, and it remains something we´ll simply never know anyway.

Well, you did kind of stir the pot by asking "...why shouldn´t he have organic web?"

Regardless of how many times you've heard the arguement (and refused to believe it) its pretty safe to say they would have. The organics scene was so small and miniscule, (kinda makes ya wonder why I even bother to argue about it ) that the change would not have made a drop in the bucket's bit a difference ... either way.

I still think the organics with the webshooters/regulators, that they built and scrapped at the last minute, would have been the perfect compromise.

I think Tobey handles comedy fine. I don´t have a problem with MJ, but the series isn´t over, who says it´ll be always only one girl in his life?

Like I said, might just be the director, and not Tobey's acting. Just seems like he's sleepwalking sometimes and his voice is not that well-suited for Spider-Man IMO. And yes, these are rat-bastard fanboy nitpicks.

Yeah, still time to change things up and and/or throw a curve ball with MJ (seeing as how you and I differ on traditional character vs screen interpretation, we won't even go there ).

We´re fans and we´re passionate, we´re just not all passionate in the exact same way or about the exact same things.

Agreed, and thats what keeps these forums from becoming boring.

 

[ultimatefan]

Well, you did kind of stir the pot by asking "...why shouldn´t he have organic web?"

Regardless of how many times you've heard the arguement (and refused to believe it) its pretty safe to say they would have. The organics scene was so small and miniscule, (kinda makes ya wonder why I even bother to argue about it ) that the change would not have made a drop in the bucket's bit a difference ... either way.

I still think the organics with the webshooters/regulators, that they built and scrapped at the last minute, would have been the perfect compromise.



Like I said, might just be the director, and not Tobey's acting. Just seems like he's sleepwalking sometimes and his voice is not that well-suited for Spider-Man IMO. And yes, these are rat-bastard fanboy nitpicks.

Yeah, still time to change things up and and/or throw a curve ball with MJ (seeing as how you and I differ on traditional character vs screen interpretation, we won't even go there ).



Agreed, and thats what keeps these forums from becoming boring.

I like to think the way science does... nothing is safe to say till it´s proven without a doubt.

His eyes can look a little sleepy sometimes, but´s just a look, not his acting, IMO. I think his voice suits a character who´s awkward and kind of an outsider... He definitely shouldn´t sound like Barry White.

Well, we agree on something.

 

[ElectroFlare]

One thing I want to say about organics vs. mechanics. I read the first couple pages and I must comment on it, even if it means the wrath of the Green Goblin will come after me

Stan Lee's original concept was organic webshooters. He disliked the idea, and went with the mechanicals.

During the timeframe of the movie(or maybe after it was finished, I'm not sure) Stan Lee admits that the organics would be more realistic.

I just had to throw that out there...

 

[Swordmaster]

Sandman. a man made out of sand. please

 

[blind_fury]

Stan Lee's original concept was organic webshooters. He disliked the idea, and went with the mechanicals.

He disliked it for a reason. Organics are too simplistic. A four year old couldve came up with the idea.

During the timeframe of the movie(or maybe after it was finished, I'm not sure) Stan Lee admits that the organics would be more realistic.

Stan Lee has also said on a number of occasions that he thought they couldve found a way to put mechanical webshooters in the movies and wish they had.

 

[ElectroFlare]

A four year old could think it up because it makes sense...not everything a four year does is inappropriate for a comic book. And the thing about webbing coming from the anus, or near it, that's the most appropriate place for a spider to have spinneretes, considering their body structure. Wrists seem to be the most appropriate place for a human, and spider/human DNA combined, if combining in such a great way as to produce spider-man's gifted powers, would most likely place the spinneretes in the wrists. But then again, I'm no expert on anatomy.


That is true, Stan Lee was probably following the reasoning of Green Goblin and several others, that it is truer to the source material. This makes sense, as Spider-man is Marvel's icon, and Stan Lee's creation...wouldn't you want a movie based off something you wrote true to the sources?

 

[blind_fury]

Sam Raimi's a hypocrite.

 

[SentinelMind]

^he has a different opinion. get over it.

 

[TheRiddlerkid]

Webshooters.

Webshooter are something that needs to be built and created, along with fluid and preperation. something Peter would never have or anyone for that matter. It is a substance that does not exsist.

Sand is in exsistences is it not. I mean when I go to the beach there is sand there right? not Web fluid. I can beleieve that someone can be forged together with Sand more that some one can make something from a non exsistent substance.

Sand is something we all are fond of.
And what is Web fluid, what is it made of?

 

[Gamma Burst]

Oh..another webshooters thread!Just what we need

 

[Doctor Goblipus]

I always thought that he didnt use webshooters because they would be bulky and clearly visible through the suit.

In movies with a man with spider-like powers, a crazed sictzo with super strenght, and a Doctor with four mehcanical arms that he controls with his brain, I cant belive were arguing about realism

Guys it been 4 years. Give it up on the webshooters, God Damn.

 

[Caliber]

I always thought that he didnt use webshooters because they would be bulky and clearly visible through the suit.

In movies with a man with spider-like powers, a crazed sictzo with super strenght, and a Doctor with four mehcanical arms that he controls with his brain, I cant belive were arguing about realism

Guys it been 4 years. Give it up on the webshooters, God Damn.

Thank you because there have been two movies and should webshooters shouldn't even talked about. We've just discovered the villian talk about that.

 

[Doctor Goblipus]

OK, THC is going to ROCK as Sandman!!!!!

 

[daveswb]

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

Actually I thought I heard that Stan Lee origioanlly wanted organic web shooters, but he was afraid how the general public would accept that. He thought it may have been too much for the kids in the 60's. At least that's what he said in an interview after one came out.

 

[Triligors]

Well, didn't Sandman get caught up in a nuclear reactor type thing with sand exploding around him or something like that?

That seems alot more realistic because there is actually science about it that could happen.

.

 

[The Lizard]

Heh - very timely bump for this thread.

I say that Sandman is less realistic than mech webshooters by far.

However, Sandman's lack of realism won't stop me from enjoying SM3 just like the mech shooters wouldn't have stopped me (or anyone else for that matter) from enjoying the first Spidey movie.

 

[citizenpain]

sandman vs. webshooters? w..t..F?

how are these two things being compared? having to explain all this extra bs about peter's father working on this formula and peter finishing it and making webbing for himself out of it was avoided probably just because it makes perfect sense (and easier story-telling) for spidey to gain the ability to shoot webs along with the rest of his powers. as for sandman, how is he any less realistic than the green goblin or doc ock? some of you have way too much free time on ya hands.

 

[The Lizard]

sandman vs. webshooters? w..t..F?
How are these two things being compared? Having to explain all this extra bs about peter's father working on this formula and peter finishing it and making webbing for himself out of it was avoided probably just because it makes perfect sense (and easier story-telling) for spidey to gain the ability to shoot webs along with the rest of his powers.

"Perfect sense?" That's a totally subjective statement of course, but that debate has already been explored in countless other threads already. I'll just say that "all the extra BS" that could have explained the mech shooters sufficiently for the first movie would have taken up about 1 or 2 minutes of screen time.

as for sandman, how is he any less realistic than the green goblin or doc ock? some of you have way too much free time on ya hands.

From a physics standpoint, a guy who can disintegrate into millions of tiny sandlike particles and reintegrate into a human being again is a lot more far-out than GG or Ock.
(Although GG's glider being able to lift the tram in the first movie was pushing it )

 

[Smegger56]

If anything, both can't really exist in the real world, but that shouldn't matter.

Both are incredibly important components in the spiderman mythos. It's all good having realism in there, but you need fantsticle elements in a superhero film to make it fun and exciting.

The web shooters issue is a big one, as it is a big part of the character. It shows his intelligence and plays really well for the story... like he's run out of webbing fighting a villian, chasing a villian, escaping from a villian etc. Also, with Sandman in particular, he couldn't use normal webbing to stop him, so spidey had to create a new web formula. But because of organics, this will never happen.

Those who are ok with the fact spidey has no shooters, then thats a little shocking, because the shooters a a big part of the REAL spiderman character.