The Amazing Spider-Man Who else feels sick?

[Chris Wallace]

Ahhh now that's more sensible! I thought we were just talking about Spider-man here.

You're right, there's a different attitude toward how Spider-man on film should be handled compared to the Batman fandom. But I think that it's pretty understandable. For instance, in Venom's case he was just completely and utterly butchered and not merely 'different'. They also killed him off, so there's no potential chance for him to do things we wanted to see him do, like there is for characters like Zsasz, Joker (who was intended to appear again and may still in some form), and Scarecrow (who has reappeared and may again). And Two-Face was just bloody well written.

An advantage the Batman films have in the matter of killed off enemies is that they can still 'come back from the dead' in comic book fashion, while with Raimi's Spider-man films the continuity is now closed, the series' run is over.

And yes, Rachel being the most unlikeable love interest ever IS very arguable. We could have Dunst's MJ VS Rachel conversations for days, I guarantee it. I will say that Maggie wrecked Rachel for me, so as far as TDK goes, you win by default. Begins' Rachel would be my only argument.

It's not even just Spidey, really. It seems like Marvel films in general are regarded with a lot less tolerance for change than Batman films. Commissioner Loeb & Harvey Dent can be black, but Kingpin can't? Joker can kill the Waynes but Sandman can't kill Uncle Ben? (Not really defending the Sandman thing, just trying to make a point here) Catwoman can be a mousy secretary, Penguin can be a sewer-dwelling mutant and these are considered brilliant moves! I have seen FAR more complaining about Wolverine not wearing his yellow (or brown) tights than I have about Batman not wearing his grey ones. They love the Tumbler but why doesn't the Goblin's glider look more bat-like? How are deviations okay for one but the other has to follow the comics to the letter?

 

[Dangerous]

So, howcome the changes to BB/TDK did not lessen your enjoyment of those movies, despite those changes working in both franchises?
I mean, in the following statements, you do not explain how these changes did not work at all, so you are not explaining anything in as much as how your stance on the Nolan Batmans makes your stance on the Raimi Spider-man hypocritical.

I explained in detail why the changes worked in BB/TDK in post #83 of this thread, go read it again if you need a refresher. I will say I am more sensitive and particular about how SM is presented in film because he is my fav character so I am more particular about his on screen portrayal.

Some BIG problems I had with the Raimi films were stuff like-
1)- Maguire as PP just did not work for me as he seemed like too much of a wuss and had ZERO personality, by contrast Nolan Batman was not wussy in the slightest.
2)- The way GG beat the crap out of him in a mostly one sided fight at the end of SM1 was just plain wrong. Spidey never got a pasting like that from GG in the comics and it made him seem like GG’s play thing.
3)- Dunst as MJ, What?

These bigger things marred my enjoyment of the films.
That is aside from all the other stuff I have previosuly detailed.

I only challenged your opinion on the changes made to the stories, not you ropinion on different actors, or more quips being used.
So, I'm a long term reader, from 77-93 I read SM comics constantly, all titles, ASM, MTU, PPTSSM, WoS, and the change did not bother me at all. In fact i wouldn't even go so far to describe it as a change, it did not affect the story one bit, in fact all it did was make the story more paltable and feel more real.
Radioactiveity was all the rage in the world back in the 50s and 60s, talk of atomic bombs etc, so stan used that. who's to say he would not have used genetics if he wrote AF15 today?

Again, it changed nothing.

Like I said it was NOT A DEAL BREAKER for me, it does not affect the the quality of the film, BUT I would like to see the bite from a radioactive spider this time around because-

1)- If would help separate this new film from the previous series, and-
2)- It’s more comic faithful

We have a different preference on this matter.
It does not require that we debate it any further.

I don't see how it gives Ben more 'dignity'? The guy is just as honorable, but i can see what you mean, you like the idea that he went out like a hero, defending his home.
But, you could also say he was just as heroic or daft, if you want, about the movie Ben, getting in the way of a guy with a gun over some property and getting himself killed.

No-ones saying it would not be good to have some changes for the next movie, but that's not to say the change made for the 1st film was a bad one, that in some way lessened teh character of Ben, which is what you imply, by saying he would have more 'dignity'.
Ok, maybe a little, if you think about the fact he could have been defending May's presence in the house, but he could also have been doing something daft, putting May at more risk by trying to tackle a burglar instead of letting him get on his way.
Because he's always been refered to as the burglar, not the guy who was going to murder Aunt May until Ben intervened, it's the same scenario essentially, murder over property.

Reasons for Ben dying at home-

1)-It is comic faithful (always the best option)
2)-It would help separate this film from the previous series
3)-Ben dies with more dignity in that he is at home w/ May and not in the street like some dog

Again the Uncle Ben death specifics are not a deal breaker, just something that I would alter to my preference if I was writing the script.

The music used for cartoons is very different from those used for movies, and for good reason. Try playing some cartoon Spidey music along with the movies and I bet you get a whacky comedic effect akin to an ep of Ugly Betty.
'whacky and comedic' may not be the effect you were looking for, but it will probably be the effect you get.

I did not say play cartoon music over the top, I said -the producers would do well to take inspirations from previous Spider-Man TV theme tunes- when composing music for the new film. Spider-Man music needs to be more up tempo and original; it needs to convey WHO HE IS. The last score did nothing to this end.

why not just get in another composer using an orchestra for a new Spidey movie, because i can understand your complaints about Elfman scores sounding similar, although i thought he did a great job with the main themes for Spider-man.

I don’t think he did a great job.
I thought his score and main theme sucked big time.
It was boring unoriginal and sounded just like any other Elman score.

Why not get another boring composer and orchestra?
Because that’s what EVERY film does.
How about something original?
Take the Iron Man score- they used an orchestra, but they did something original and created music that recalled Iron Man and the metallic theme of the hero.

In you opinion, but in mine and many others, the train scene was one of those type of classic moments, what does it matter if he was dead on his feet beforehand in some, does he have to be in order for it to be a classic moment, what's wrong with the actual scenario causing him to pass out dead on his feet? the point is he was pushing himself beyond his limits and against the odds.

It just didn’t get my blood pumping.
The fight atop the train before that was great tho.
About the only good 2-3 minutes in SM2.

and you seem to be wanting something you will probably never get from a Spider-man movie, an internal monlogue.

I was talking about this on one of the threads on the top board last week. More than quips, more than anything else, this is a main ingredient of a Spider-man comic, and one of the main appeals of the books imo, that we will probably never get in the movies, his internal monologues. They have only only used in superhero/comicbook movies for detective type stories like Rorschach, and Sin City, because they are traditionally used for detective stories in movies, it's not an idea too far out of the box. Whereas, if you were relying on an interior monlogue to carry a lot of scenes in your Spider-man movies, and then they came off as cheesey when it came time for the actor to overdub his lines(like they can do in a lot of movies), your Spider-man movie would be up crap creek.
No-one is going to risk the internal monologue for a Spider-man movie.
edit: Sony certainly won't anyway.

You see, people throughout mankind’s history have ALWAYS said ‘this can’t be done’, or ‘this won’t work’ until one day; - BANG! Someone does it! –Shock-.

So what if only Rorschach and Sin City characters are the only comicbook films thus far to use an internal monologue; - they’re not going to stay the only two examples forever.
Look at non superhero stuff like TV classic ‘The Wonder Years’, or how about the film ‘Stand By Me’. Both great examples of internal monologue used well. Not superhero stuff, but I bet there were some doubters in the case of The Wonder Years about how well it would work.

Whether Sony would employ this technique is something different all together.

Venom looked great to my eyes, in fact if he had looked any bigger he would have looked ridiculous, he looked just the right size, somewhat bigger than Spider-man and muscular, for it to look cool and tasteful in a live action setting. The raised webbing looked great as well, and was necesarry so there was texture on the black form so it could be seen in front of black backgrounds.
You did see him talk out of his alien mouth sometimes, there was a mixture, but Raimi likes to see the actor's face now and again, and I thought Grace looked good with the little sharp teeth he had. Venom's look was very faithful, with changes done to benefit the live action representation.

Disagree on all counts.
Let’s leave it at that.

People will always except what is put in front of them in a film if it ‘works’ and then make excuses/trick themselves as to why a more faithful vision would not have worked. It's called 'backwards rationalization', you do it to re affirm your previous commitment / stance / actions. Or perhaps you actually believe what you are saying 100%. Point is- Anything is possible in cinema and art- just like Science has yet to discover thousands of secrets.

I mean , you must see how your argument used to defend the Nolan BM films can and must be used in defnece of the Spider-man changes. You can't just drop that stance of logic for another franchise because it suits you, it's hypocritical.

There no hypocrisy in anything I have said. I have explained my point of view and my reasons and acknowledged that I am closer to the character of Spider-Man than Bats thus I am going to be more critical of Spider-Man’s on screen representation.

HOWEVER there are several GLARINGLY inadequate aspects of the Raimi Spidey flicks (IMO) that just rub me up the wrong way and thus severely stilted my enjoyment of these films which I have detailed above, primarily amongst these the miss casting of PP.

 

[Dangerous]

Exactly! The fact that some bashers deny this baffles me.

Perhaps if you had actually -READ- my response, you would no longer be baffled?

No 95 in this thread.

 

[david icke]

I explained in detail why the changes worked in BB/TDK in post #83 of this thread, go read it again if you need a refresher. I will say I am more sensitive and particular about how SM is presented in film because he is my fav character so I am more particular about his on screen portrayal.

[...............]

There no hypocrisy in anything I have said. I have explained my point of view and my reasons and acknowledged that I am closer to the character of Spider-Man than Bats thus I am going to be more critical of Spider-Man’s on screen representation.

Yes, the parts I have bolded...EXACTLY. You will probably never be satisfied with any Spider-man film because there will never be one that fits exactly with what you imagine in your head, your own personal Spider-man film.
We all have those, but most of us are realistic with the fact that we will not get that, and that what works on page does not always transfer to screen well.

You have been hypocritical, for this reason. You've said it's ok to accept changes to Batman source material to make it work onscreen, but it's not ok to do that with the Spider-man universe.
Folk said you would not admit to being hypocritical on this matter, it's really no big deal to admit that, we all can be. But, you have been, and all you have done here is explain the reason *why* you are being hypocritical, without admitting that you were.

HOWEVER there are several GLARINGLY inadequate aspects of the Raimi Spidey flicks (IMO) that just rub me up the wrong way and thus severely stilted my enjoyment of these films which I have detailed above, primarily amongst these the miss casting of PP.

Yeah, as I said before, I was not talking about things like changing actors, I was talking exclusively about the points you made about how things in Spider-man books should not be changed at all when being adapted for the screen , while it was alright for things like that to be changed for Batman.

edit: I mean, you have said again that being 'comics faithful' is *always* the best option. But, you say this only for Spider-man, but not Batman, how can such a rule be absolutely necesarry for one character but not the other? That is where the hypocrisy lies.

 

[Dangerous]

Yes, the parts I have bolded...EXACTLY. You will probably never be satisfied with any Spider-man film because there will never be one that fits exactly with what you imagine in your head, your own personal Spider-man film.

Well, if you’d said that to me in April 2002 I would have said you were 100% correct.
But since then I have learned that I’ll never see MY Spider-Man film on the big screen and my expectations became a lot more realistic.

If I like the casting choices in SM 2012, and the characters are written more like their comicbook counterparts and Spidey is funny and the action and costumes are great… BELIEVE ME- I will be happy.

You have been hypocritical, for this reason. You've said it's ok to accept changes to Batman source material to make it work onscreen, but it's not ok to do that with the Spider-man universe.

I never said it was ‘OK to make changes to Batman’ nor did I ever say it’s ‘NOT OK to make changes to Spidey’.

What I said was that for me, the changes in the Nolan films worked and did not harm the films, but that in the Raimi films, the changes imo lessened the characters and movies. In that often characters etc came out for the worse as pale reflections of their comicbook counterparts. I also acknowledged that I am WAY more of a Spidey fan than a Batman fan and that could be taken into consideration.

There’s nothing hypocritical in offering my opinions on these films.
But for some reason you think there is.

Folk said you would not admit to being hypocritical on this matter, it's really no big deal to admit that, we all can be. But, you have been, and all you have done here is explain the reason *why* you are being hypocritical, without admitting that you were.

I agree; - admitting something is no big deal, but I think you have either genuinely misunderstood what I have been saying, or are trying to twist it into something it is not- hypocrisy, because you don’t like my opinion.

edit: I mean, you have said again that being 'comics faithful' is *always* the best option. But, you say this only for Spider-man, but not Batman, how can such a rule be absolutely necesarry for one character but not the other? That is where the hypocrisy lies.

Where did I say that only counts for Spider-Man?

I did not. You’re just assuming that, misinterpreting what I have said.

Being faithful to the source imo, unless we’re talking about yellow and blue X-Men outfits, is always the best option as a general rule. I did not just mean Spidey there, I meant EVERY comicbook film inc Batman. As it so happens, the Nolan films altered some of the main characters and from my perspective; they still worked and were great to watch.

In the case of some of the Raimi SM characters I have mentioned- the changes that were made to them were not as successful imo and often were symptomatic of producing a poor Spider-Man film.

Coming from a comic faithful perspective to is always the best general policy, but sometimes changes can be made and they work (Nolan films) and other times they don’t (Raimi).

There is nothing hypocritical about explaining what I thought worked and did not work in both film series and explaining why.

 

[Anubis]

I'm kinda gassy, but I don't think it's because of Spider-Man.

 

[david icke]

There is nothing hypocritical about explaining what I thought worked and did not work in both film series and explaining why.

I'm sorry, but the reasons you gave for the changes you wanted were flimsy, and I'm talking about the changes here, not actors.

Like, Venom's raised webbing shouldn't be there, why? Because it is not like that in the books, despite teh fact that they tested this and found it to not show up onscreen very well against a black background, you still don't want that change.
edit: I mean, the only reason you gave for the raised webbing being a bad idea is because it looks 'lame.' Whereas there is a very good reason for that slight aethsetical change being introduced, so that you can actually see the character onscreen and make out what he is doing.

and wanting Ben to be killed at home, why? Because he somehow has more 'dignity' dying there.
edit: Despite the fact that by making the story more concise it helps the movie a great deal due to time constraints, and could even be considered an improvement in a way, to have the robbery Pete fails to stop be part of the same crime that gets Ben killed.
which is a much better reason for the change.

Th ereal reasons you want these not be changed is because you , as you describe yourself, are a 'purist' when it comes to spider-man.

If you can't see how you are coming across, I can't say anymore on the subject.

You said the Nolan changes WORK(your caps), whereas you said these Spider-man changes did not, and have given no good reason why not.

It certainly gives the impression you just want an absolute transfer from the books, regardless of whether or not the chages benefit the movie.
But, you are ok with the changes to Batman because you are not so much of a fan, ie they don't bother you so they are ok and 'work'.
But, things that 'work' in the Raimi Spider-man movies, still bother you and should not be there, why? not because they don't work, but because they are not like the comics.

thank goodness they did not go with the black suit story from the comics though eh?

edit: dude, i don't mean to be harsh, you may not have said in exact words, 'It's ok for Batman books to have changes for the screen, but not Spider-man.', but in deed, with what you are posting, this is what you are saying, to my sensibilities anyway.

 

[Chris Wallace]

As do many fans-this character has to be translated directly, that one does not.

 

[Dangerous]

I'm sorry, but the reasons you gave for the changes you wanted were flimsy, and I'm talking about the changes here, not actors.

Flimsy to you, these are my feelings and thoughts on the Spider-Man films, stuff that stuck out to me as being crap.

Like, Venom's raised webbing shouldn't be there, why?

Because it looked Crap, …
Because Venom does not have any webbing on his costume maybe?
Heh

Because it is not like that in the books, despite teh fact that they tested this and found it to not show up onscreen very well against a black background, you still don't want that change.

edit: I mean, the only reason you gave for the raised webbing being a bad idea is because it looks 'lame.' Whereas there is a very good reason for that slight aethsetical change being introduced, so that you can actually see the character onscreen and make out what he is doing.

Fact is they could have made the costume a slightly different shade; - incorporated some more blue from the comics to get it to show up more against a black background.. or make it more light reflective… or they could have just added bodybuilder veins to him which would have produced the same effect as the raised webbing, but looked cool instead of lame.

On the other hand, Venom NOT showing up that well against a black background is perhaps preferable because that way he is more frightening in that he’s not easy for Spidey or the audience to see when he is near by.

That is how he was sometimes used in the original Venom apps- he often did blend into the background and you could only make out his eyes / teeth / Spider-emblem. This was done deliberately to make him scarier; - a threat you could not see in the dark, and it was frickin awesome.

Also the effect of this on a film audience would be a nice visual metaphor for Spidey’s loss of Spidey sense and serve to make Venom more scary on screen in the same way that the Alien was in 1979.

and wanting Ben to be killed at home, why? Because he somehow has more 'dignity' dying there.

If you need me to list the reasons again, here we go-

Reasons for Ben dying at home-

1)-It is comic faithful (unless you can improve something, always the best option).
2)-It would serve to separate this film from the previous series.
3)-and yes, Ben dies with more dignity this way, w/ Aunt May the woman he loves instead of in the street with everyone watching.

As I said this is not one of my main requirements, just something I’d ‘LIKE’ to see.
It is my opinion.
We REALLY do not need to chew this one over forever.

edit: Despite the fact that by making the story more concise

The way I see it is; - in SM 2002 it feels more like the story is rushing to get to the death.
It works much better with PP returning home, to his sanctuary, to find his Uncle dead and his world turned upside down. It’s more dramatic and more of a sucker punch this way because it happened at home at the end of his day.

it helps the movie a great deal due to time constraints,

The use of time constraints was symptomatic of trying to shove too much into one movie, but that’s another topic.

and could even be considered an improvement in a way, to have the robbery Pete fails to stop be part of the same crime that gets Ben killed.
which is a much better reason for the change.

No.
In AF#15 it’s still the same guy.
So what if he didn’t stop to get a coke and a snack in between crimes.

Th ereal reasons you want these not be changed is because you , as you describe yourself, are a 'purist' when it comes to spider-man.

Incorrect; - It’s because uncle Ben’s death worked much better in it’s original format in AF#15 for the reasons sated above.

You said the Nolan changes WORK(your caps), whereas you said these Spider-man changes did not, and have given no good reason why not.

I have explained numerous times.
Post #83 page 4 for example.

It certainly gives the impression you just want an absolute transfer from the books, regardless of whether or not the chages benefit the movie.

I do not want an absolute transfer of the Spidey books, want would be the point watching if it was exactly the same stories again? I’ve listed what I want, for your benefit here they are again-

1-PP/SM to be portrayed by an actor who embodies the magnetism and strength that PP has in panel, meaning we don't get another drip w/ no personality like Maguire.
2-Spidey to be full of quips
3-Characcters being portrayed / written correctly, and Gwen & MJ looking like their characters.
4-Villain costumes being faithful
5-Mech webshooters.

If the new film has these alterations I’ll be more than happy.

But, you are ok with the changes to Batman because you are not so much of a fan, ie they don't bother you so they are ok and 'work'.

Spider-man- I know the characters and stories very well, so naturally I am going to be more critical of what is presented to me in a SM film. I have already acknowledged this.
I am not saying my opinion is law, I am just saying it is my opinion. This is what I thought of both film series.

One of the main problems I had w/ the Raimi films is that Spidey just seemed to wimpy to me, and not himself- no quips. SM2 for example felt like a chick flick the way the PP/MJ story seemed to be the core focus of the script, rather than the soap opera stuff being 50% with the other half being all about the action like it is in the comics. The Nolan films did not suffer from this. I didn’t feel bored or agitated while watching them, and Chris Bale IMO was/is great as BW/BM.

But, things that 'work' in the Raimi Spider-man movies, still bother you and should not be there, why? not because they don't work, but because they are not like the comics.

They didn’t work for me. That’s why they should not have been as they were.
Not because everything was not like the comics, but primarily because for me,- Peter Parker & Spider-Man were not being portrayed correctly. And I don’t think anyone can say that about BB/TDK.

thank goodness they did not go with the black suit story from the comics though eh?

I don’t know if you are being serious about that or not, but the ‘black suit’ in SM3 was an absolute abomination; - just the red and blues after Spidey had been for a swim in some oil.

To me it was a travesty because the black suit from the comics is one of the absolute greatest and most beautiful pieces of graphic design ever created, right up there w/ the Bat-Signal / Emblem.

And despite what ever you may think about it not looking right on screen (tho I can’t imagine why- it would look sublime) I’d say there is a good chance of it being used in the new franchise and when that does happen I bet everyone will agree on how awesome it looks.

edit: dude, i don't mean to be harsh, you may not have said in exact words, 'It's ok for Batman books to have changes for the screen, but not Spider-man.', but in deed, with what you are posting, this is what you are saying, to my sensibilities anyway.

Then you have not read my posts properly.

 

[david icke]

Look, I did read your posts properly. I just didn't quote them because it's the same thing over and over between us.

I'm still of the opinion from reading your posts, properly, that you would not be satisfied with any spider-man film that was not like the exact one you have in your head.
No matter what they did you would find fault with it.

I mean, you're staring to say things like you would prefer a Venom who looked just like the comics version even if you could not see him properly onscreen, because you get panels where all you can see is his teeth and eyes.

and you would prefer 'body builder veins' over raised webbing. Honestly, i think if they had used 'body builder veins', you would probably be saying those were 'lame', and would now be suggesting raised webbing as a better idea.

as for Ben's death at home being the pref. Just because you say you want this for the next movie because it's a change does not mean you don't have a problem with the changed way they did it for SM1, because you do, and not for any good reason i can see presented here.

I honestly hope you get a Spider-man movie someday that you can sit back, relax and enjoy, but i doubt it, because if they did it just like the comics, you would have a black suit that did not make pete stronger or evil(thats the suit i was talking about, and btw the shiny test suit they made looked a little crap and did not show up on black backgrounds of course), and you would just see two pairs of white eyes and a couple of white spiders flying about the screen for the Venom/spidey fights. If that's your idea of a good faithful spidey movie, i have to say, I would imagine you would have the theatre to yourself for those flicks.

anyway, I'm done with this discussion edit: No offence, I just think we have both said our pieces and are going in circles now.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Well put, David.
Something else I've been noticing among the "pro-rebooters" is a lot of contradiction. They want a darker, more serious movie but they want Spidey to quip more. They want a simplified costume so that it seems more plausible that a 16-year-old with no money could have made it, but they want the mechanical webshooters so that it shows his genius. They want the story closer to the 616 comics but at the same time they seem to want it closer to the "Ultimate" storyline. I honestly think some of them are just on the bandwagon of bashing Raimi just for the sake of bashing Raimi.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Perhaps if you had actually -READ- my response, you would no longer be baffled?

oh, please. You're response was EXACTLY what it was. You were disliking the fact that we haven't seen SPidey struggle and ahve to try with all of his strength.

 

[david icke]

Well put, David.
Something else I've been noticing among the "pro-rebooters" is a lot of contradiction. They want a darker, more serious movie but they want Spidey to quip more. They want a simplified costume so that it seems more plausible that a 16-year-old with no money could have made it, but they want the mechanical webshooters so that it shows his genius. They want the story closer to the 616 comics but at the same time they seem to want it closer to the "Ultimate" storyline. I honestly think some of them are just on the bandwagon of bashing Raimi just for the sake of bashing Raimi.

The idea of having a simpler, ie more crappy looking, costume, because they want to be able to believe Pete made it is...crazy. That's just one of those suspension of beliefs you accept in these kind of movies, because otherwise you'd be watching a guy jumping about in a tracksuit with a ski-mask on, actually, kind of like the suit he wears to the wrestling.

I can see how you can have a darker movie, and have the quips though, as he uses the quips to keep him sane while dealing with the danger.
Personally, I don't need a 'darker' spider-man movie necesarily, just one that has a plausible convincing threat.
The Raimi movies were pretty serious, I'd just like some little details made more realistic, like JJJ going through his photos looking for the one shot that can incriminate spidey, other than just any generic photo with 'menace' plastered across it.

Yeah, the Raimi movies got a lot of things right, the right tone etc, it's a shame that folk are *so* gung ho about the change, as if Raimi was so off track, because they will be lucky to get a movie as good as those ones, and it will be a terrible shame if it takes a truly average or bad spidey film to make folk appreciate what Raimi did.

 

[Dangerous]

I'm still of the opinion from reading your posts, properly, that you would not be satisfied with any spider-man film that was not like the exact one you have in your head.
No matter what they did you would find fault with it.

I have already listed the 5 essential criterion I would like to see in the new movie, and told you I would be more than happy if these things happen. Heck, it would be 5 reasons why the film would be better than SM1-3.

If you don't think I'd be happy with a Spidey film that did these 5 things, it'll make no difference to me. I'll be too busy sitting in the theater every day loving the film.

and you would prefer 'body builder veins' over raised webbing. Honestly, i think if they had used 'body builder veins', you would probably be saying those were 'lame', and would now be suggesting raised webbing as a better idea.

What makes you say that?

You don't know me or what how my preference for on screen Spidey villains works, well, that is aside from me explaining my preference to you; - the more faithful to the source the better. And Venom has bodybuilder veins in the comics, NOT raised webbing.

As for the black against black issue, like I said, aside from the veins serving the same purpose as the raised webbing only looking cool instead of crap, they could also make him more blue looking- (see pic below) or make him more light reflective. But they wouldn't need to if they used veins instead of raised webbing. Either of the 3 would work for me though.

Blue/black Venom?

.....and you would just see two pairs of white eyes and a couple of white spiders flying about the screen for the Venom/spidey fights.

I already explained to you in my previous post THREE ways how we could avoid the black suits being invisible against black, and again above.

 

[david icke]

I already explained to you in my previous post THREE ways how we could avoid the black suits being invisible against black, and again above.

Ok, but you also said you wouldn't mind it not showing up as well against the black bgrounds as you could have moments where you only see his eyes and teeth like the books. I mean, I had to make a joke about that somewhere.

But, in all seriousness, the things you are talking about, putting a mix of blue into the suit and having it shiny....the filmakers will have tried that out, they tried it out with the black spider-man suit they tested, that was just like the comics, it looked bad on film. someone posted up a photo of it, and it looked all shiny and pretty bland tbh, even before the filming problems it posed.
and how could they put in a mix of blue and black like the comics? By having blue shiny streaks mixed in? It would be nigh on impossible to achieve this kind of consistent effect on film, for it too look good and realistic, while ensuring it would show up against black backgrounds.
as for the body builder veins, seriously, to be noticable, and make enough of a difference as to make the suit stand out from black backgrounds, they would have to be exagerated to the extent that they would look ridiculous.

Sometimes you have to trust these experienced filmakers and the tests they did beforehand, to find the best possible solution to these problems while trying to remain faithful for the fans, and of course because the original designs are pretty good.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

venom is way too huge anyways

 

[Dangerous]

Something else I've been noticing among the "pro-rebooters" is a lot of contradiction. They want a darker, more serious movie but they want Spidey to quip more.

Seems rather narrow minded to me that you’re not be able to picture a darker & more gritty SM film, in which the protagonist tells jokes while fighting.

I don’t suppose you are familiar with the videogame- MadWorld / Wii ?
There is an example of a dark and gritty game (heck, that’s an understatement; - it’s violent and gory!) that features comedic commentary over the top of the action and it works very well.

A board member in a different thread suggested that in SM 2012 fights and uncle Ben’s death should be dark in tone, but that the rest of the film, especially the soap opera elements would do well to take their cues from the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon.
I thought that was quite a good idea.

They want a simplified costume so that it seems more plausible that a 16-year-old with no money could have made it, but they want the mechanical webshooters so that it shows his genius.

It’s a comicbook, get over it.

I think what pro rebooters, generally speaking, would like to see this time is a more faithful adaptation. That would inc- a) a more realistic costume from a 16 yr old w/ no money... and b) Webshooters! If that don’t sound realistic to you take it up w/ Stan Lee.

They want the story closer to the 616 comics but at the same time they seem to want it closer to the "Ultimate" storyline. I honestly think some of them are just on the bandwagon of bashing Raimi just for the sake of bashing Raimi.

Not me I hate USM, and I strongly disliked the Raimi films.
Personally I hope the film takes it’s inspiration from the following-

ASM#1-100- For correct characterizations, and inspiration for some great fights
McFarlane’s Torment story- For the dark and gritty elements
Spectacular cartoon- for the mood of the soap opera elements

 

[Dangerous]

Ok, but you also said you wouldn't mind it not showing up as well against the black bgrounds as you could have moments where you only see his eyes and teeth like the books. I mean, I had to make a joke about that somewhere.

The suggestion of the white eyes/ teeth / emblem against a blk background would be cool if it was used in just one scene, like it was in ASM#299 (Venom’s first app ) but the fact that you zeroed in on that idea, and ignored my other three about how to make an all black venom more visible against dark hues, seems to me indicative of a somewhat begrudging perspective towards those that do not share a mutual affinity for your beloved Spidey films of yore.

But, in all seriousness, the things you are talking about, putting a mix of blue into the suit and having it shiny....the filmakers will have tried that out, they tried it out with the black spider-man suit they tested, that was just like the comics, it looked bad on film

and how could they put in a mix of blue and black like the comics? By having blue shiny streaks mixed in? It would be nigh on impossible to achieve this kind of consistent effect on film, for it too look good and realistic, while ensuring it would show up against black backgrounds.

This is not rocket science we are talking about, and with today’s CGI- ANYTHING can be achieved on screen. The reason the film makers tests on the suit failed initially is because they were going for the wrong angle to start with- using a real suit and CGI mix when Venom should have been 100% CGI. So what they were testing, CGI wise, was what would work well and look the same as that horrid material/suit they were using.

If Venom had just been 100% CGI as he should have been, it would have been very easy to have the edges of his musculature feature blue lighting (or he could have been more blue w/ his musculature ft black shading like ASM#378 I posted), or have him being more light reflective. Not that you would need to do either of these because the veins would work just fine, ala horrible raised webbing.

Besides, it’s not like Batman has had a problem showing up on screen in films like Batman89, Batman Returns & BB despite being 95% black, heh. And that was with laytex! Something much less pliable than CGI.

as for the body builder veins, seriously, to be noticable, and make enough of a difference as to make the suit stand out from black backgrounds, they would have to be exagerated to the extent that they would look ridiculous.

Nope, they’d just have to be the same size/color and cover the same areas that the raised webbing did on Raimi-venom. The result however, would be something that looked more like Venom rather than a horrid bastardization of both Spidey costumes rolled into one.

Sometimes you have to trust these experienced filmakers and the tests they did beforehand, to find the best possible solution to these problems while trying to remain faithful for the fans, and of course because the original designs are pretty good.

Like I said previously, a large percentage of fandom will often accept what is put in front of them in a comicbook film if it’s passable, and then lament/convince themselves how anything more accurate or better would have been impossible.

 

[david icke]

Like I said previously, a large percentage of fandom will often accept what is put in front of them in a comicbook film if it’s passable, and then lament/convince themselves how anything more accurate or better would not have been impossible.

Some appreciate that there are two entirely different mediums involved here, and not to change some aspects to adapt for the new medium would be stupid, and sometimes impossible to do without being unwatchable or ridiculous..

I mean, you are now saying you would prefer a more 'realistic', ie crappy looking, Spider-man outfit, one that looks like it could have been stitched up by a 16yr old, instead of the very faithful, great looking, and best superhero outfit so far in films being used.
and you say 'it's a comicbook, get over it.'?! Why not take your own advice and have a little suspension of disbelief so that we can enjoy a Spider-man movie with him looking cool, instead of a guy in a tatty tracksuit-like halloween costume with his ass falling out of his trousers as he leaps around.
Yeah, let's keep it very realistic in that regard, let's have his eyes on show as well, and have his fingertips and bare feet on show so we can realisticly imagine that he sticks to walls.

btw, Venom was CGI for a lot of shots, it was the CGI shots they were concerned with mostly not showing up against black backgrounds.
I feel you have very unrealistic ideas about thye creative process, it's like you just point to a comicbook cover and say 'I want it like that! CGI can do anything!'
Yeah, it can, but it doesn't always look that great, they went for the best look, the raised webbing was a minor add and you can't handle that!?
Man, I don't know how old you are, but you should have been around back in the days when all we had was the first two superman movies that were any good and faithful to the books at all. A bit of raised webbing, sheesh, they did a good job bringing Venom's look to the screen, and it was a good looking texture. Why Completely CGI what you can do practically? Practical will always look better and more real. Thank god they did not completely CGI him, yuck.

edit:and no, some fans don't just 'put up with' changes, they are smart enough to figure out why some things just would look crap onscreen.
I hadn't seen any photos of the test black suit spider-man they did, but i had a pretty good idea why they did not go with it, and was right about that once i saw the test photo someone posted up of it.

 

[Dangerous]

oh, please. You're response was EXACTLY what it was. You were disliking the fact that we haven't seen SPidey struggle and ahve to try with all of his strength.

My response explained in a number of different ways why the train scene was lacking for me.
If you are still baffled after that, I guess you just find it hard dealing w/ the fact that other fans have different opinions to yours.
Either that or you need to brush up on your reading skills. ?

 

[Dangerous]

Some appreciate that there are two entirely different mediums involved here, and not to change some aspects to adapt for the new medium would be stupid, and sometimes impossible to do without being unwatchable or ridiculous..

Agree.

There will always be some degree of compromise on certain issues.
But in the case of Raimi-Goblin’s and Raimi-Venom both were terrible re interpretations of the original character designs. Imo.

I mean, you are now saying you would prefer a more 'realistic', ie crappy looking, Spider-man outfit, one that looks like it could have been stitched up by a 16yr old, instead of the very faithful, great looking, and best superhero outfit so far in films being used.

I never said crappy.
You did.

I said a more realistic costume that a 16 yr old with little funds could produce.
Meaning a more comic faithful costume.
Meaning the spandex (not that you would have to use spandex per say) red and blues, with either sewn in black webbing, or the black webbing drawn on via permanent marker.

Essentially just the original costume, in the Romita Sr style.

What was great about that costume is; - not only is it the greatest looking costume ever, it would not actually cost that much to make. Heck a guy on these boards posted pics in the last two days (reboot costume thread / SM 2012 Spoilers) of a pretty awesome Spidey suit he made in recent times. All you would need is some great design skills, and some degree of stitching skills on a sewing machine.

Here’s a cool pic by Alex Ross’ of what the Romita costume would actually look like-

and you say 'it's a comicbook, get over it.'?! Why not take your own advice and have a little suspension of disbelief so that we can enjoy a Spider-man movie with him looking cool, instead of a guy in a tatty tracksuit-like halloween costume with his ass falling out of his trousers as he leaps around.

Alex Ross’ paintings really look like that.

Why don’t YOU take your own advice and have a little suspension of disbelief that it might actually be possible for the 2012 film to feature a Spidey costume that looks like it could have been made by a 16 yr old instead of a movie studio and is more faithful to the comicbooks, meaning- cooler looking.

Yeah, let's keep it very realistic in that regard, let's have his eyes on show as well, and have his fingertips and bare feet on show so we can realisticly imagine that he sticks to walls.

How exactly does that relate to the source?
It doesn’t.

btw, Venom was CGI for a lot of shots, it was the CGI shots they were concerned with mostly not showing up against black backgrounds.

I know.
BUT; - any CGI had to match up with that crappy suit/material that TG was wearing, thus the CGI was effectively being compromised.

I feel you have very unrealistic ideas about thye creative process, it's like you just point to a comicbook cover and say 'I want it like that! CGI can do anything!'

Fair enough.
I feel that I understand the creative process pretty well for a person not involved in these films.

My view of you on these matters is that I feel that you are less bothered about such characters visual identities being represented as well as it can be in these films, and have a tendency to except something as the ‘best possible option’ if it looks ‘OK’ (OK being something different from one person to another). So what.

Yeah, it can, but it doesn't always look that great, they went for the best look, the raised webbing was a minor add and you can't handle that!?

I can handle it pretty easily.
It just looks crap.
But you don’t seem to be able to handle that I feel this way about it, heh.

Why Completely CGI what you can do practically? Practical will always look better and more real. Thank god they did not completely CGI him, yuck.

Because the practical suit looked crap for the most part, but that’s probably more down to the costume design than materials used. Why CGI all of Venom, well the alien part, not Brock, because it is a freakin alien. It is not supposed to look like anything from this planet. Since all the SFX Venom bits are done with CGI anyway, why not just go 100% CGI Venom to create better consistency and thus free the costume design from the limitations of a practical suit.

edit:and no, some fans don't just 'put up with' changes, they are smart enough to figure out why some things just would look crap onscreen.

Of course, I’m obviously not as brainy as you that’s why I don’t understand that a crap looking Venom whose costume which is a bastardization of the red and blues & black costume is a better option than wanting something that looks more like Venom, which of course, would look crap onscreen.

Damn, I wish I was as smart as you.

 

[david icke]

Of course, I’m obviously not as brainy as you that’s why I don’t understand that a crap looking Venom whose costume which is a bastardization of the red and blues & black costume is a better option than wanting something that looks more like Venom, which of course, would look crap onscreen.

Damn, I wish I was as smart as you.

Dude, you're the one who assumes someone does not read your posts properly when they think your ideas are ridiculous and unrealistic.

and as for that home made Spider-man suit idea. You propose the idea that he should use a black magic marker for the webs?! lol, that's why I said that if they went 'realistic' to the point where they had a costume made up that looked like a kid made it, it would look crappy.
and the costumes in the comics are drawings, the point is, his costume looks cool in the books, it looks cool in the movies. What does not look aesthtically pleasing to the eye is some guy's halloween costume, yeah I saw the poster's home made suit, and if they used anything like that for a major spider-man film the audience would be pissing themselves laughing everytime he came onscreen, the movie would be a laughing stock.
Save that kind of thing for 'Kick-Ass' which is playing with that kind of idea, taking it a little more into the real world and giving him a crappy costume that is just a tracksuit basically(wet suit in the books), and is supposed to be funny in that regard.

EDIT: The point about the movie costume design is that they are trying to make a costume that looks as cool and as good as that Alex Ross pic you posted, and they did. They did not draw thin black lines on red fabric, why? because they wanted people to be able to see the webs, and make them out as well they can when they are looking at a drawing or a painting.
Are you seriously telling me that a person's home made Spider-man costume looks as cool or as good as that Alex Ross pic?



The reason i made the joke about showing his feet and hands is, if you are going to go realistic with the costume to the point you want to believe a kid made it, and it looks like crap, why not take to an even more ridiculous levels like that? I mean, if we're throwing suspension of belief out the window entirely.

Ok, I think we're done here. There's no point in discussing this anymore, we are on very different pages when it comes to this.

 

[Dangerous]

and as for that home made Spider-man suit idea. You propose the idea that he should use a black magic marker for the webs?! lol, that's why I said that if they went 'realistic' to the point where they had a costume made up that looked like a kid made it, it would look crappy.

That was just one idea for the webs.

Above all, what I want to see is a comic faithful suit that looks like it is made from readily available materials. Not something that looks like it was made by a super computer or movie studio out of expensive and complex materials.

That’s what I mean in terms of a ‘realistic’.

EDIT: The point about the movie costume design is that they are trying to make a costume that looks as cool and as good as that Alex Ross pic you posted, and they did.

That’s your take on it.

Imo the Raimi costume was no where near as cool looking as the Romita-Ross images.

They did not draw thin black lines on red fabric, why? because they wanted people to be able to see the webs, and make them out as well they can when they are looking at a drawing or a painting.

Take a look at this bust-

As you can see, the webs are just as visible here as in the comicbooks, AND could feasibly have been drawn on by a black marker. Also consider that in the comics, when Spidey is pictured a reasonable distance away from the ‘camera’ you can’t actually see the webbing on his costume.

Are you seriously telling me that a person's home made Spider-man costume looks as cool or as good as that Alex Ross pic?

No.

I was using that example to highlight how if a person knows his way around a sewing machine, he/she can make a pretty decent version of the red and blues. Obviously a similar back to basics take on the costume in the new film would look much better.

Also about that Ross pic- to have a costume look that good, all you would need is two main ingredients-

1) A guy who gets into ‘Spider-Man shape’. Maguire pretty much achieved this in SM1, and…

2) The Romita SR costume replicated exactly, with decent, flexible lenses, and more rigid boots with real soles.

You might laugh at this suggestion, but that’s only because it has never been done / seen before. I reckon it could look great. See the Spidey head bust above.

Ok, I think we're done here. There's no point in discussing this anymore, we are on very different pages when it comes to this.

You said that about a page ago.

 

[david icke]

You might laugh at this suggestion, but that’s only because it has never been done / seen before. I reckon it could look great. See the Spidey head bust above.

What in heaven's name has a bust got to do with a fabric costume? lol, seriously dude, just because it's 3D does not mean, 'they can make it like this!' It's still paint on a hard surface, nothing like fabric at all.
If you walked into an art school and said, 'I want the costume to look like this.', they would laugh you out of town. It would be like asking someone to lick a bit of paper with a cake recipe written on it and expecting them to know what the cake would taste like.
Showing that bust is exactly the same as posting the alex Ross pic.

About the closest thing we have to what you suggest is the Nicholas Hammond costume, and I'm talking about the webs here. The webs looks crappy, and indistinct.

The only place that costume you are imagining will ever exist is in your head. It's not do-able, no matter how they stitch the webs, or 'draw' them in they will never look as distinct as a fine black line inked or painted in a drawing.
That is the point of the thick raised, 3D mesh webbing of the Raimi films, to reflect light and give the webs more body and solidity, ie to make them distinct. Like the nicely thick inked lines of comic books that give the costume body and form.

All you seem to want is the Nic Hammond suit webs, although perhaps with thicker stitching, and that would not make much difference.

You said that about a page ago.

Yeah, but when you bring up crazy suggestions like drawing in the webs with black magic markers...I mean, how can I not respond to that? I can't get over it still.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

My response explained in a number of different ways why the train scene was lacking for me.
If you are still baffled after that, I guess you just find it hard dealing w/ the fact that other fans have different opinions to yours.
Either that or you need to brush up on your reading skills. ?

You're just proving my point about what I said a to you even more. Also, insulting me over an internet message board is quite pathetic.

As for your views on Spidey's suit, David Icke pretty much took the words out of my mouth.