Why does Spider-Man's mask keep coming off!

[Geko]

V for Vendetta proved you don't need to constantly see a character's face to empathize with them.

The Vendetta mask had facial features.
Spidey's mask does not. Apples and Oranges

 

[zanos]

You are correct, I've never failed to connect with the characters in those other mediums. However, they are exactly that... OTHER MEDIUMS. In comics, as I mentioned, artists distort the mask in order to give Spidey's masked face emotion. Cartoons do the same thing. Novels have no visuals at all, so you as the reader create those images in your head, and they are perhaps the most powerful because every character looks exactly as you would have them look.
In the movies however, Spidey's mask is static. Actually Rami experimented with animating the mask, changing the shape of the eyes for emphasis to get that same comic feel, but felt in live action it didn't work. So, with no moving features, Spidey runs the risk of becoming a puppet. Ever notice that Kermit the Frog almost NEVER stands still. He's always moving bouncing a little, that's because if he stops moving he's no longer perceived as a living thing. The same rule applies to the masked Spidey. Even if he's talking, if he's not moving you run the risk that the audience will fail to associate the voice with the image.
I do not underestimate the power of speech. However as both an actor and a teacher I can tell you with some authority, the power of visuals trump the power of speech nearly every time.

Actually distorting Spidey's mask to produce expressions is somewhat new. It wasn't often if ever done until McFarlane started drawing Spider-man. Then more artists started copying his style. It was never done in any of the cartoons at all. It's really nothing more than a creative decision. The removal of the mask serves a function in the film but it's a crutch which Raimi created for himself. Audiences only end up connecting with the character within the context of the scene he's removing his mask in but outside of that he's still a faceless mute for the next 2 hours. In the comics Spider-man is smart, witty, charming and charismatic. Movie Spider-man/PP is mute, dull and socially ******ed. Sensory starved audiences may actually NEED to see his face every now and then to remind themselves it's a real person and not some cartoon up there.

 

[zanos]

In cartoons they slow down the action, pause and create time for characters to talk to themselves.
If they did that in the movies, you'd wonder why Doc Ock stopped fighting for 45 seconds so Spidey could have an internal monolouge.

That's kind of extreme. There's plenty of time for dialogue whether it be spoken or narrated to the audience. You just have to have the will to do it. Raimi would have us believe it's impossible.

 

[blind_fury]

The Vendetta mask had facial features.
Spidey's mask does not. Apples and Oranges

A mask is a mask dude. You still can't tell what a person is feeling. It doesn't matter if the V mask has a smiling mouth. You still can't tell when he's angry, sad, worried, excited, inspired, embarrassed, fustrated, relieved, etc etc.

 

[Geko]

I disagree

 

[NUFFSAID2004]

I disagree

Who exactly do you "disagree" with here? Both Zanos and Blind Fury make a great deal of sense concerning an incredible character, who in fact, has been quite watered down in Spider-Man 2. He's robbed of his trademark wit, charm and charisma. It saddens me to know that the full extent of the character is not being used here, but rather neglected.

 

[The Joker]

That's one of the glaring flaws with the Spider-Man movies. Spidey has virtually no personality. He hardly speaks when in costume.

Pity. Spidey's smart mouth is a trademark trait of the character.

 

[SuperFerret]

Tobey is not the same caliber of actor that Weaving is.

 

[Won '08]

Actually distorting Spidey's mask to produce expressions is somewhat new. It wasn't often if ever done until McFarlane started drawing Spider-man. Then more artists started copying his style. It was never done in any of the cartoons at all. It's really nothing more than a creative decision. The removal of the mask serves a function in the film but it's a crutch which Raimi created for himself. Audiences only end up connecting with the character within the context of the scene he's removing his mask in but outside of that he's still a faceless mute for the next 2 hours. In the comics Spider-man is smart, witty, charming and charismatic. Movie Spider-man/PP is mute, dull and socially ******ed. Sensory starved audiences may actually NEED to see his face every now and then to remind themselves it's a real person and not some cartoon up there.

To correct you. Spidey's "Facial Expressions" Were occurring way before Todd ever touched the web slinger.

Carry on.

 

[Won '08]

Matter of fact. Romita Sr. was doing such for a long while. But anyway.

 

[zanos]

To correct you. Spidey's "Facial Expressions" Were occurring way before Todd ever touched the web slinger.

Carry on.

Sorry incorrect.

 

[dodus]

Didn't Spidey grow pupils when he realized that The Burglar was Uncle Ben's killer. I think that was before MacFarlane.

 

[zanos]

Are you insane?

 

[dodus]

If wading into an internet argument about how far Spidey's facial expressions date back makes me insane, which I believe it does, then yes.

 

[Tangled Web]

Because these movies are horrble at capturing Spider-Man's essence. They ignore his wit and charisma. They try to make it seem like Peter-Man and less like Spider-Man. Hence the mask always coming off.

 

[Geko]

Who exactly do you "disagree" with here? Both Zanos and Blind Fury make a great deal of sense concerning an incredible character, who in fact, has been quite watered down in Spider-Man 2. He's robbed of his trademark wit, charm and charisma. It saddens me to know that the full extent of the character is not being used here, but rather neglected.

Both of them. I disagree with Blind Fury's assertion that "a mask is a mask" We are naturally more sympathetic to things with faces. The V for Vendetta mask had features, Spidey's mask is featureless. No human eyes, no pupils, no mouth which makes it harder for an audience to sympathize.

I disagreed with Zanos' statement that MacFarlane was the first artist to distort the appearance of Spidey's mask in order to convey emotion, which Won 08 pointed out.

Zanos' and I also disagree on how much Spidey-Banter can be inserted into a movie without sacrificing pacing and action.

And as long as I'm on a role here, I disagree with you. I don't think Spider-Man's character is being neglected. Spidey's wisecracks were still in these films, just not as frequent as you might like. Besides, I think the heart and soul of Spider-man has always lived in Peter Parker, and Rami had the insight to craft a film that's about an average guy who happens to get superpowers, instead of making a movie about a superhero who sometimes pretends to be normal.

 

[NUFFSAID2004]

Both of them. I disagree with Blind Fury's assertion that "a mask is a mask" We are naturally more sympathetic to things with faces. The V for Vendetta mask had features, Spidey's mask is featureless. No human eyes, no pupils, no mouth which makes it harder for an audience to sympathize.
Mask or no mask, personality goes a long way. This is one of the traits which have always made Spider-Man unique. Much of Parkers supressed inhibitions come out through his alter ego. His wisecracks are also something he uses to mask his own fears. And what if someone is blind. They go on personality and not on expression.


Zanos' and I also disagree on how much Spidey-Banter can be inserted into a movie without sacrificing pacing and action
Actually, it's all a matter of creativity and timing. It is possible.


And as long as I'm on a role here, I disagree with you. I don't think Spider-Man's character is being neglected. Spidey's wisecracks were still in these films, just not as frequent as you might like. Besides, I think the heart and soul of Spider-man has always lived in Peter Parker, and Rami had the insight to craft a film that's about an average guy who happens to get superpowers, instead of making a movie about a superhero who sometimes pretends to be normal.

Okay, granted. In the first film we did have a few Spidey wisecracks. As a matter of fact, I am a huge fan of the first film. However, in the Spidey 2, aside from Spidey tossing back a bag of money at Doc Ock and saying,"Here's your change", that was all we really got out of tight lipped Tobey. I still think it's Spider-Man who's short-changed here.

 

[zanos]

Both of them. I disagree with Blind Fury's assertion that "a mask is a mask" We are naturally more sympathetic to things with faces. The V for Vendetta mask had features, Spidey's mask is featureless. No human eyes, no pupils, no mouth which makes it harder for an audience to sympathize.

I disagreed with Zanos' statement that MacFarlane was the first artist to distort the appearance of Spidey's mask in order to convey emotion, which Won 08 pointed out.

Zanos' and I also disagree on how much Spidey-Banter can be inserted into a movie without sacrificing pacing and action.

And as long as I'm on a role here, I disagree with you. I don't think Spider-Man's character is being neglected. Spidey's wisecracks were still in these films, just not as frequent as you might like. Besides, I think the heart and soul of Spider-man has always lived in Peter Parker, and Rami had the insight to craft a film that's about an average guy who happens to get superpowers, instead of making a movie about a superhero who sometimes pretends to be normal.

Who are we kidding here? Peter Parker/SM is non existant in these films. The character is modeled after Clark Kent from the Donner films. It's really not up for interpretation.

 

[zanos]

Actually, it's all a matter of creativity and timing. It is possible.

Precisely, ppl act like they've never seen examples of it in other films. Marv from Sin City barely stopped talking during the entire time he was on his murder spree.

 

[Geko]

I've stated my opinions and back them with my training and experience as both a teacher and as an actor.
As brevity is the soul of wit, I will leave this discussion by restating... I disagree.
If you've forgotten my opinions, they are easily found on this and the preceding page.

I wish you well and hope for your continued enjoyment in the discussion of a film you do not appreciate, and assure you I will continue to enjoy watching the same film which I consider a piece of unabashed brilliance.

 

[Kasady]

To everyone complaining that Spider-man isn't makeing wise-cracks every 2 seconds when Peter's loved ones are in danger of being killed. In the comics at the begining Peter Parker didn't have a lot of self-confidence. So he could be identifiable to lots of people. As he was Spider-man through the years he became more confident. In the 1st movie he's just getting his powers & uncle Ben dies and in 2nd he's depressed and losses his powers. So we haven't really gotten a chance to see a super confident Peter/Spider-man. The comics have shown him every month in multiple comics for over 40 years. So there we get to see the light hearted wise-cracking super-confident side of him. The movies however can only focus on a short time frame of his life. So they choose to show the periods in his life when everything seems to be going against him. Instead of the time when Peter/Spider-man is on top of the world. I feel this makes for a much better and more interesting movie. Which is why the Spider-man movies are my favoite comic book films. But to each his own.

 

[Kasady]

Precisely, ppl act like they've never seen examples of it in other films. Marv from Sin City barely stopped talking during the entire time he was on his murder spree.

Yes, but Marv and almost every Sin City character are plum-nut-crazy and I love that. So I can understand hearing them talk to themselves no mtter what their doing. Not to mention that its a staple of film noir. The Spider-man comics and cartoons only really used it as a crutch to inform people of what happened in past issues and shows. Also the stories in Sin City are so short they were able to put 3 whole stories word for word in 1 movie. As I said the Spider-man movies are trying to cover stories that took place of 1000's of comics. So they really can't do that. I think the spearing use of Peter talking to himself has lead to some of the most powerful moments in the movies (the "great power, great responability" and "Spider-man no more" scenes).

 

[blind_fury]

You do realize Spider-man being especially high spirited, witty and funny would contrast much more with the tragic aspects of his life and thus make the impact of his broken spirit that much more powerful.

 

[Niobe]

Through the film Spider-mans mask is taken off 5 times some are not needed and some are, so i wonder if this is some technical reason.

1. When Spidey first loses his powers and falls on the pipes, he stands up and takes his mask off - not needed

2. When he falls after trying to climb the wall he takes it off again - not needed

3. When trying to save the train, it gets burnt and he takes it off - whether that was what was meant to happen or not i dont think that was needed

4. Harry takes it off - needed obviously

5. when he shows doc ock who he is - also needed

In my opinion the reason why Spidey keeps taking off/losing his mask is quite simple. They paid Maguire like 10 million bucks so they have to use him in as many scenes as possible.

 

[zanos]

Long drawn out staring matches between him and MJ make up for that.