Which was worse?

[Jeckel]

I see the point with the whole..........tradition, thing, but seriously, think about it. If he had used web shooters, the would of probably been like wrist bracelets. You wouldnt be able to just have him pretend they are on under his gloves and they sure as hell wouldnt of hid them. Plus, how would a teenager, no matter how intelligent, be able to create a material that what, NASA scientists cant even replicate? I suppose, as I heard in an episode of Spider-Man the animated series, Spidey could of had his imagination jogged with the formula to the material when the spider bit him..........but I still think it sounds a little far fetched. I think when it comes down to it, the main problem with this issue is how practical the person is. And plus it would be kind of making Parker too smart. Sure, he is intelligent. But he isnt Reed Richards, it would make the public (which i think this is overused but true) harder to relate with him. And one last thing, fan boys and girls cant alone hold up a franchise. Mechanical webbing would of raised a few eyebrows in the reviewers eyes on the practical side of this film, which was one of its strongest points.

 

[Jaguar God]

It could have been done traditionally. Check out the schematics for his web-shooters and you'll see for yourself.

 

[Herr Logan]

Originally posted by Jeckel
I see the point with the whole..........tradition, thing, but seriously, think about it. If he had used web shooters, the would of probably been like wrist bracelets. You wouldnt be able to just have him pretend they are on under his gloves and they sure as hell wouldnt of hid them. Plus, how would a teenager, no matter how intelligent, be able to create a material that what, NASA scientists cant even replicate? I suppose, as I heard in an episode of Spider-Man the animated series, Spidey could of had his imagination jogged with the formula to the material when the spider bit him..........but I still think it sounds a little far fetched. I think when it comes down to it, the main problem with this issue is how practical the person is. And plus it would be kind of making Parker too smart. Sure, he is intelligent. But he isnt Reed Richards, it would make the public (which i think this is overused but true) harder to relate with him. And one last thing, fan boys and girls cant alone hold up a franchise. Mechanical webbing would of raised a few eyebrows in the reviewers eyes on the practical side of this film, which was one of its strongest points.

It's completely irrelevant that it seems unrealistic that a teenager could create biodegradable synthetic webbing fired from mechanical bracelets. It's been good enough for 40 years, and they haven't changed it in the entire run of the series. Movie reviewers wouldn't like it? Oh, it's breaking my heart. Either they're writing Spider-Man-- a 40-year running popular character-- into a movie, or they aren't. I can look past it for the sake of enjoying other aspects of the movie only because they downplayed the disgusting nature of this change, but there is no valid excuse for this decision. You people think it's idiotic to complain for two years about this? How about those who ignorantly defend it? At least the complaints are valid. Not one of the excuses I've heard since the first mention of "organic web-shooters" has stood up to an intelligent analysis. It's pointless to defend something that's indefensible.

Jaguar God: if your biggest beef with Daredevil is that they changed the Kingpin's skin color, then you aren't the kind of fan with which most of us should be allying ourselves. If you thought Michael Clark Duncan wasn't right for the role, then fine. I was disappointed, personally. But skin color alone is irrelevant in the Kingpin's case. His origins weren't changed in the movie, since they weren't actually revealed anyway. It's not important, the shallow way this movie was written. Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane? Yes, that's an unforgivable betrayal, but only because that skank can't act and I can't stomach her. That, and it's much, much easier to find a Caucasian woman of Lois's size than to find a Caucasian male who look like the Kingpin. J. Jonah Jameson has a very distinctive look, so it would be sort of wrong to deviate by casting an Asian. The wrongest thing of all would be simply to cast anyone besides J.K. Simmons. You have to get your priorities in order.

 

[Jaguar God]

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Jaguar God: if your biggest beef with Daredevil is that they changed the Kingpin's skin color, then you aren't the kind of fan with which most of us should be allying ourselves. If you thought Michael Clark Duncan wasn't right for the role, then fine. I was disappointed, personally. But skin color alone is irrelevant in the Kingpin's case. His origins weren't changed in the movie, since they weren't actually revealed anyway. It's not important, the shallow way this movie was written. Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane? Yes, that's an unforgivable betrayal, but only because that skank can't act and I can't stomach her. That, and it's much, much easier to find a Caucasian woman of Lois's size than to find a Caucasian male who look like the Kingpin. J. Jonah Jameson has a very distinctive look, so it would be sort of wrong to deviate by casting an Asian. The wrongest thing of all would be simply to cast anyone besides J.K. Simmons. You have to get your priorities in order.

I was buying DD comics before you were born. There was only one Kingpin in the comics and he was white. And don't you ever make the mistake again thinking that I would even want to be your ally. My opinion was requested for this thread and I gave it. And Dennis Farina looks much more like Jameson than Simmons. Finally, if you think that skin color is truly irrevelant when casting a comic book character then you are not a comic book fan. Don't acknowledge my posts again, sonny.

 

[Jaguar God]

By the way, there are white guys on the World's Strongest Man competitions on ESPN that are bigger than Duncan. Heck, Bill Kazmaier could have shaved his head and face and pulled it off. For those of you that don't know, Bill is usually the host of the competetion and he is a former winner. The studios only want to put someone in the movie that has star caliber instead of starting someone's career.

 

[Herr Logan]

Well, I feel chided. I sure won't acknowledge that first reply of yours, old man, if that makes you happy. Except for this: Farina wouldn't have been as good as Simmons, and I said skin color only matters for certain characters. Being overly picky about skin color is sort of an old and outdated way to live, isn't it? Too bad wisdom was in scarce supply in your day, pops.

They should not be casting body-builders in roles meant for actors, period. If they had done the right thing and used computer effects to make the Kingpin look the way he looks in the comics, they could have used any number of top-notch Caucasian actors. The biggest problem was size, not color. The were lazy and they picked the biggest intimidating star they could find and made him gain 50 pounds instead of doing the work they should have.

 

[Jaguar God]

I agree that CGI should have been used for Kingpin but I thought that would get shot down. So you think that body-builders shouldn't get roles? Who would you suggest play Hercules of the Avengers? Or Conan the Barbarian? There are body builders that can act and there are actors that suck. Farina is a far better actor than Simmons. Just because Farina wasn't in Oz doesn't make him a bad choice. Being picky about skin color is not outdated to me when a comic character is white then he should be white in the movie. Go ahead and call me a racist now, I know you want to. I hope someone makes a movie about your favorite superhero and changes his or her race, and then we'll all see if you come here and spread your wondrous joy about it. Anyways, enjoy The Amazing Man-Spider vs. "Octupus Man with tentacles that have minds of their own". And don't forget ugly-ass Kirsten Dunst. Couldn't they have found a real redhead that is hot?

 

[Herr Logan]

So now you're ranting about "Man-Spider" and "tentacles that have minds of their own". Great way to bring the fight, pops.

I'm not going to dignify Man-Spider with a response anymore, because it's not a constructive point, and considering Spider-Man was a creature called "Man-Spider" in the comics and cartoon, it's inaccurate. I never condoned what they did to water down and distort Spider-Man, and I've stated so many times.

The tentacles presumably have independent AI that allow them to perform separate functions simultaneously, which is what they do in the comics. "Minds" of their own? Stop taking everything those non-articulate producers at Sony say so God damn literally. Why is there a panic over this? Why is there a panic over a chip "Doc Ock?" These are not accurate descriptions of the situation, so until you get a reliable synopsis, keep taking your pills. "The pink ones keep you from screamin'." --Abraham Simpson

I don't know enough about you to call you a racist, or much of anything. I don't believe in "race" among human beings. Until mutancy becomes an issue, it won't be real. If you believe in it, well, that says what it says about your understanding of basic human biology and the world around you.

All I can say is, it's puerile to be so admant about the skin color of a character that, if properly casted (or alter by CGI tech), cannot be mistaken for any other character. It's wrong to make Lois Lane look different than she does in the comics because her exact look is all we have with which to identify her. The Kingpin is supposed to be about 6.5 to 7 feet tall and three miles wide, so you know it's him whether he's white, black, or anything in between. If it's the main character, you can't mess with that. If it's a supporting character, you shouldn't mess with that unless the guy is as big as the Hulk and can be easily identified. With Wilson Fisk's personal history, it wouldn't change at all if his "race" were changed.

I believe in making small concessions to movie adaptations. Big ones are accepting organic web-shooters and leftover M.A.N.T.I.S. costumes with a child's Halloween mask used for the Green Goblin. Small ones are the skin color of an enormous villain and the fact that Peter Parker and Harry Osborn went to high school together instead of meeting in college. I'm not a permissive fan. Not at all. I just have my priorities.

 

[Jaguar God]

what was M.A.N.T.I.S.? Was that a movie?

 

[Herr Logan]

M.A.N.T.I.S. was a show Sam Raimi made a few years ago. It was about a brilliant parapalegic (played by Carl Lumbly, the Martian Manhunter from "Justice League") who built an exoskeleton that not only allowed him to walk, but granted him superhuman strength. At least I think I remember that correctly. The suit looked very bug-like, and not too far-off from the Goblin armor. Raimi tends to recycle his actors (including his brother) in his shows and movies, and apparently his costume concepts, too.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

ignore this

 

[spideyboy_1111]

ok before all of u go on a 40 day spew listen.. THESE MOVIES ARE ADAPTATIONS!!!... nothing and i mean nothing will ever be made exactly like there comic counter parts why? because in the movie world comic book movies do better with a realistic element. I know i would rather think of all the heroes i love existing in my world and thats what marvel goes for.. stupid things like peter being bitten by a radioactive spider is ok to change why? because every one and there mother knows radiation will kill you. also in the 60's they did not know all that radiation could do.. thus why in comics we have hulk, pheonix, fantastic 4, spider-man etc... Sure within the Spider-man movie things were changed deal with it. peter being fired from Connors lab.. why.. because he wasnt there all the times he should.. and if any one knows the spider-man comics its that thats what happens with peter.. hes late for work.. misses dates... "forgets" to do things.. all because of his alter ego... movies are never like there books.. people need to get over it.. sure the goblin costume could have been better... and ill give you that the webshooters wouldnt have hurt.. but it does not make that much of an over all difference.. why? because peter is still who he always has been... we know he is smart.. and i for one think some of the little changes with the story and plots make things more interesting.. the characters are 3 deminsional now... not 2D. There needs to be more support at time now. I for one would not want to see the same exact stories shown on the big screen... why? because it would be predictable.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally posted by Jaguar God
It could have been done traditionally. Check out the schematics for his web-shooters and you'll see for yourself.

then why dont they exist for real.. the web shooter doesnt make the web... the capsules do.. and no one can create spiderweb yet.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally posted by Herr Logan
It's completely irrelevant that it seems unrealistic that a teenager could create biodegradable synthetic webbing fired from mechanical bracelets. It's been good enough for 40 years, and they haven't changed it in the entire run of the series. Movie reviewers wouldn't like it? Oh, it's breaking my heart. Either they're writing Spider-Man-- a 40-year running popular character-- into a movie, or they aren't. I can look past it for the sake of enjoying other aspects of the movie only because they downplayed the disgusting nature of this change, but there is no valid excuse for this decision. You people think it's idiotic to complain for two years about this? How about those who ignorantly defend it? At least the complaints are valid. Not one of the excuses I've heard since the first mention of "organic web-shooters" has stood up to an intelligent analysis. It's pointless to defend something that's indefensible.

ok this is the same reason the whole world does not read comics.. and its not becuase they dont want to spend money on them... we read them for fantasy.. we can except it.. but again all i have to say is if the rest of the world wont pic a comic book and read it like we do then why would they want to see these movies? they have to be altered to be realistic. these movies are not made for the fans only. but to attract fans.

Jaguar God: if your biggest beef with Daredevil is that they changed the Kingpin's skin color, then you aren't the kind of fan with which most of us should be allying ourselves. If you thought Michael Clark Duncan wasn't right for the role, then fine. I was disappointed, personally. But skin color alone is irrelevant in the Kingpin's case. His origins weren't changed in the movie since they weren't actually revealed anyway. It's not important, in order. [/B]

ummm excuse me... i believe they were to an extent.. i believe his son was the one who left roses.. .u know.. "the rose" they added that tidbit into kingpin but kingpin in the comics does not do that.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

The Amazing Man-Spider vs. "Octupus Man with tentacles that have minds of their own". And don't forget ugly-ass Kirsten Dunst. Couldn't they have found a real redhead that is hot? [/B]

ummm one comment to that... do u know how hard it is to find a extremely hot red head with deep dark red hair who has no freckles alll over her face and can tan? MJ is a rare beautiful breed.. i seriously dont think anyone could play the perfect MJ.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

For those who want to see what the M.A.N.T.I.S. looked like was this.





http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/mantis.htm
































ironically... looks nothing like the GG

 

[Herr Logan]

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
ok before all of u go on a 40 day spew listen.. THESE MOVIES ARE ADAPTATIONS!!!... nothing and i mean nothing will ever be made exactly like there comic counter parts

Heard this uncounted times before. It isn't much more valid this time around. You're making excuses for lazy writing and inadequate attention to detail. Are you really so passionate about lazy thinking that you would continue to defend this? Your case is weak, and it's less constructive than pointless complaining and nitpicking. Logically, nitpicking and pointing out flaws could potentially (not in this thread, but generally speaking) lead to solutions. Defending inadequacy does nothing to help, and everything to hurt. Don't bother trying to impress the point on me that low standards and lazy brains are the way to go unless you're in for a 40 day spew of repeating your inadequate argument.

 

[Herr Logan]

Friggin' memory is leaving me faster than women and children off a sinking ship. That doesn't look too similar after all. If it wasn't M.A.N.T.I.S., then what am I thinking of? Probably Power Rangers villains or something as ludicrous.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Heard this uncounted times before. It isn't much more valid this time around. You're making excuses for lazy writing and inadequate attention to detail. Are you really so passionate about lazy thinking that you would continue to defend this? Your case is weak, and it's less constructive than pointless complaining and nitpicking. Logically, nitpicking and pointing out flaws could potentially (not in this thread, but generally speaking) lead to solutions. Defending inadequacy does nothing to help, and everything to hurt. Don't bother trying to impress the point on me that low standards and lazy brains are the way to go unless you're in for a 40 day spew of repeating your inadequate argument.

obviously u didnt read my back up... u got that far and stopped... either that or u didnt pay attention to it.

 

[Herr Logan]

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
obviously u didnt read my back up... u got that far and stopped... either that or u didnt pay attention to it.

Sorry if I made it seem like I didn't read your whole post. I did, but for the sake of space, I only quoted the first part.

I suppose I can agree that realism is good and predictability is bad, and that's why I said "It isn't much more valid this time around." However, I don't consider a genetically enhanced spider passing its properties along to a human through a bite any more realistic than the spider doing the same thing passing irradiated DND into the bloodstream. I'm not even going to look at that mangled sentence. Just trust me that it should make sense. I don't buy organic web-shooters that produce steel-strong strands from one's arm being more realistic. I don't buy the organic web-shooters, period. I can tolerate them if they actualy put some effort into the writing in the sequel and further movies, unlike the first movie. Otherwise, it's a failure as far as intellect and Spider-fandom are concerned. Special effects are nice, but I came to see Spider-Man, not Avi Arad's latest cash cow.
I refuse to acknowlege the idea that the characters in the movie are 3-dimensional and more fleshed out than the comic book versions. I realize that a long-running series offers time and opportunity that a movie doesn't in terms of character exposition and development, but that is not an excuse for writing bland characters. One single comic of Spidey's shows more character than the Spider-Man film. We got to see a watered-down, under-spoken, generic shadow of the character we love. There is no excuse for that. The only explanation is laziness.
Of course, there's also the issue of selling this crap to a wide, profitable audience full of pre-teen girls and non-fans. Still not an excuse for flattening and generalizing Peter Parker and limiting his dialogue and banter. Not by a long shot. He'll still be a pretty-boy, whether he talks like an intelligent person or whether he garbles the mushy tripe he spews at MJ in the slow scenes. He'd be more marketable if he was funnier. Funny sells. This absence was a mistake, and there is no excuse. Quirky sells, too. Spider-Man is incredibly stereotypical and generic in the basic ways of superheroes, but his character and dialogue is (or would be, if written properly) unique, and that makes him popular to all us geeks, and it would sell to the lowest common denominator, too.
I've had this debate too many times to count, and while you seem intelligent, you also insist on defending an indefensible set of failures. That's your decision to make. I make only small compromises for films like this, and basic powers (webbing), brains (Peter's a social moron, but his wit is sharper than Wolverine's pig-stickers) and personality (the quips, the banter, the utter disregard) are non-negotiable.
Low standards are what allows people to catch illness from food and heavy machines to malfunction. It's gotta stop somewhere. I'm saying, here and now, it's wrong, and I won't be swayed to think otherwise.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

i read what u said and respect your opinion... your intelect is far greater then those like parker and bakerboy. and i agree there were mistakes... peters whit should be there and its not.. but lets not judge till we see the sequal. look how much x1 changed from X2... you can tell the actors are much more in to character and comfortable.. they can have more fun with it. so maybe spidey will have wit within spidey 2. but still the age old factor of the organics and the spider. genetics is the "radiation" of today if you will, we dont know its capabilities, where as radiation.. we know what it does now, so yes it really changes nothing.. peter still has his powers and its more believable... why? because with radiation we know he would be dead... with genetic alteration.. we dont. my biology teacher and i were talking about that actual thing one day.. and she told the whole class.. its very possible.. its harnessing it wich we dont know how to do. so its ok to assume that peter grew the glands in his arm. my question is why have the glands? when he could use his classic.. and comic acurate webshooters? there is really know good reason.. but they probably took into consideration this. Sure peter can make a webshooter... its just where and how does he make the web? Scientist today can't even produce a spider's web... as of right now the military is actually trying to genetically combine a goat and a spider so that way the goat when milked will produce webbing. but its has not been succesful as of yet. so how could peter? and i would imagine you couldnt make webbing out of easy materials.. def not house hold materials.. so i would assume for the amount of cartridges peter would make.. it would cost him quite a penny. so what im saying is that webshooters as they seem more probable then web glands... there really just as unbelievable with todays standards.

 

[Jaguar God]

Originally posted by Herr Logan
M.A.N.T.I.S. was a show Sam Raimi made a few years ago. It was about a brilliant parapalegic (played by Carl Lumbly, the Martian Manhunter from "Justice League") who built an exoskeleton that not only allowed him to walk, but granted him superhuman strength. At least I think I remember that correctly. The suit looked very bug-like, and not too far-off from the Goblin armor. Raimi tends to recycle his actors (including his brother) in his shows and movies, and apparently his costume concepts, too.

Thanks. It's coming back to me now. I used to watch that. Carl is also on Alias and was in Buckaroo Banzai.

 

[Jaguar God]

Originally posted by spideyboy_1111
ummm one comment to that... do u know how hard it is to find a extremely hot red head with deep dark red hair who has no freckles alll over her face and can tan? MJ is a rare beautiful breed.. i seriously dont think anyone could play the perfect MJ.

TWO WORDS: CASTING DIRECTOR! If old Sammy had a good one, then maybe Dunst wouldn't be there. But hey that's my opinion. My cousin who's 8 years younger than me thinks Dunst is hot. It's a matter of preference.

About the web shooters again. Young, intelligent people can create alot of cool things. You think that people today would not accept Peter making web shooters but these same people can accept that he got powers from a radiated spider? You're comparing apples to oranges.

And lastly, adaptations suck.

 

[Curt Connor]

I know it's a reshashed topic, but I remember an interview on the space channel we get here with Stan Lee. And they brought up very briefly the question of the webshooters. I found his answer very interesting Stan Lee was referring to the producers or Sony quote.

"Well, I was told it's easy for people to believe someone can be genetically altered. But it's hard for them to believe someone can be really smart"

with a sarcastic smile on his face and they went on with the interview. And I think that really sums up the attitude of producers. Trying to guess at or satisfy the public without keeping the integrity of the character. Or much respect for the creator or fans for that matter.

Regarding alot of changes being made in the Xmen movies and daredevil, well, I'm not a huge fan of those characters, but a fan none the less, And I agree alot has been changed from the original comics, eg. Iceman drawn more like a snowman than an iceman in the really old comics (and I think hulk was originally grey). I'm not sure if Peter Parker first saved Curt Connor and was hired or the reverse. But the original Character of Peter Parker was always able to keep up his studies and scientific work despite being Spiderman which was a real testament to his I.Q. Which I feel was taken away in the movie, was the point I was trying to make there. (may not of explained it too well). Anyway, Small changes I think are good ...as the comics improved the characters later as well.

My only problem has bin when fundamental changes have bin made or trademarks of the character are changed, and important personality changes. There always has to be a line drawn somewhere, and this is what I'm trying to bring attention to. When you cross that line, there is no going back and you lose the character when you go too far

 

[Jaguar God]

Thanks for that Stan Lee tidbit. And I agree on the fundamental changes.