Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who agrees with me? Is it spiderman or manspider?
REPLY!



Luvly Bannanazuh!

The reason that "Spider-man" was choosen was because the name just sounded right. I learned that from a Stan Lee interview.

manspider sounds stupid thats why...lol

Depends on your personal opinion.

Spider-Man to me.

But if some people think Man-Spider then thats their right.

It's pretty simple. He was a man first, then became bit, so in essence, he's a Man-Spider, having adopted the characteristics, but that sounds stupid, so its reversed for marketability.

The same can't be said for Superman, or "Man-Super", as he was born with his gift.

Mr. Parker and I have had discussions about this and I agree with him. Man-Spider only applies to Sony's Spiderman. The original Spiderman from marvel is a scientist who builds and creates his own webbing. His superpowers came after the fact he was bitten by a radio active spider. Thus, the title is more fitting in the comics as Spiderman. But the version from Sony does no justice to the character. He is fully mutated (which I won't go on with this because is a whole different topic) and shoots his webbing from his organic body. That makes him a mutant. Whereas the Comic Book version clearly explained he was not a mutant when Spidey transformed himself into the Man-Spider saga in which he grows 4 arms.

Just recently Mr Parker and I discuss the issue of Batman. A friend of my was introduced into our logic of Man-Spider. But he rejected that logic by making the statement that the same can be said about Batman. Meaning that it would be more logical to call him Man-Bat. But this is where his logic fails. Batman has no superpowers nor did he became a bat. However! Batman has an adversary known as Man-Bat. This Man-Bat has the similar case as Spiderman. Man-Bat is illogical for Batman (Bruce Wayne) because there is no organic change from a man to an animal nor there is a mutation. Bruce chose the symbol of the bat (for discussion purposes we will use the word "chose" in this case. This could be argued later in another thread) to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. Within time he became a myth, a legend, and finally a reality for the crime world in Gotham.

With Superman is a totally and different case. Superman was not born a man first and then gain powers. He was born with his super powers at child birth. Thus "Man-Super" does not apply. Is a bit tricky with these names.

Examples Captain America was not really a Captain he was a private.

Mr Fantastic was not really fantastic he was first Scientist Reed Richards and then became Mr Fantastic by accident.

A clear example is Thor. Much like Superman Thor was born with his powers and then he created his secret identity. You can't call him Man-Thor because is ludicrous and the same with Superman.

man-spider is probably the right interpritation (sp?) of what he is but like you say it doesnt sound right

I agree with WD, it should've been called Manspider, only because the Spider man movie was so inaccurate.

Originally posted by Your Angel
I agree with WD, it should've been called Manspider, only because the Spider man movie was so inaccurate.

true

It definitely should be Manspider.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Mr. Parker and I have had discussions about this and I agree with him. Man-Spider only applies to Sony's Spiderman. The original Spiderman from marvel is a scientist who builds and creates his own webbing. His superpowers came after the fact he was bitten by a radio active spider. Thus, the title is more fitting in the comics as Spiderman. But the version from Sony does no justice to the character. He is fully mutated (which I won't go on with this because is a whole different topic) and shoots his webbing from his organic body. That makes him a mutant. Whereas the Comic Book version clearly explained he was not a mutant when Spidey transformed himself into the Man-Spider saga in which he grows 4 arms.

Just recently Mr Parker and I discuss the issue of Batman. A friend of my was introduced into our logic of Man-Spider. But he rejected that logic by making the statement that the same can be said about Batman. Meaning that it would be more logical to call him Man-Bat. But this is where his logic fails. Batman has no superpowers nor did he became a bat. However! Batman has an adversary known as Man-Bat. This Man-Bat has the similar case as Spiderman. Man-Bat is illogical for Batman (Bruce Wayne) because there is no organic change from a man to an animal nor there is a mutation. Bruce chose the symbol of the bat (for discussion purposes we will use the word "chose" in this case. This could be argued later in another thread) to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. Within time he became a myth, a legend, and finally a reality for the crime world in Gotham.

With Superman is a totally and different case. Superman was not born a man first and then gain powers. He was born with his super powers at child birth. Thus "Man-Super" does not apply. Is a bit tricky with these names.

Examples Captain America was not really a Captain he was a private.

Mr Fantastic was not really fantastic he was first Scientist Reed Richards and then became Mr Fantastic by accident.

A clear example is Thor. Much like Superman Thor was born with his powers and then he created his secret identity. You can't call him Man-Thor because is ludicrous and the same with Superman. That is as detailed as it gets. But the comic book Spiderman is classified as " An illegal genetic mutation" Mutants are born with their powers.( Spidergirl inherited it from her dad.) Genetic mutations either puposely tampered with their genetic structure or in Peters case, It happened by accident. The man- Spider is still a result of the Peters genetic makeup becoming screwed. It wasn't exacty his fault. ( Cartoon Spidey I can blame.)

Originally posted by WindDancer

Examples Captain America was not really a Captain he was a private.

Mr Fantastic was not really fantastic he was first Scientist Reed Richards and then became Mr Fantastic by accident.


Now, he being Fantastic is strictly opinion, lol. If I thought he were an *******, he's be Mr. *******. The rest of the crew take on his namesake, they'd be the Assholes 4, or Four Assholes.

That said, did Doctor Doom ever really get his degree?

(BTW, excellent summerization for the non-comic fans.)

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Now, he being Fantastic is strictly opinion, lol. If I thought he were an *******, he's be Mr. *******. The rest of the crew take on his namesake, they'd be the Assholes 4, or Four Assholes.

That said, did Doctor Doom ever really get his degree?

(BTW, excellent summerization for the non-comic fans.) Wow . And I really wanted to see the FF movie to...

Is this entire thread a joke? Mr. Parker would always complain about the spider-man movies. I think he was almost banned several times. If you don't believe me you can read his old posts. Are you guys trying to get him to come back?

I agree.

This thread was not necessary and just an obvious attempt to provoke a flame war.

Pathetic.

Hey thats not nice its an okay thread...Thats why I didn't start it I knew someone was gonna come and be all moodie.

How is this a nice thread???

Please explain.

No one breathes a word of the Man-spider saga Except Mr.P and Its nice to hear about an overly Mutated Parker. Funny even though some people MAY think it's a load of bull. All I have to say is no one told those people to come spam up this thread. Clear enough Doc?

I think you misread what Man-Spider means to Mr Parker.

He is talking about Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man and how he had organic webbing.

Not the mutant spider Peter turned into in the cartoon.

Yeah, this thread should be closed down. Theres no conclusion or agreement ever made. Let By-GONES be By-GONES.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
That said, did Doctor Doom ever really get his degree?
Doom gets what Doom wants.

Originally posted by doctorstrongbad
Is this entire thread a joke? Mr. Parker would always complain about the spider-man movies. I think he was almost banned several times. If you don't believe me you can read his old posts. Are you guys trying to get him to come back?

Boy you dont know what you are talking about Doc.The only one time I ever got into trouble here for was I discussed the manspider movies in the Elektra and Superman sections a couple times before and was warned to keep those discussions here in the spiderman section.I seldom ever venture into the spiderman section anymore because I got tired of explaining it to people like you who just wont ever get it that that was the character of manspider you saw on the screen.NOT spidey.I got tired of trying to explain that to people like you so I dont post in the spiderman section anymore.But I never came close to being banned. least of all several times.

btw,I got no problem with this thread.I find it humourous actually.so dont worry doc ock.

Originally posted by Mr Parker


btw,I got no problem with this thread.I find it humourous actually.so dont worry doc ock.

Okey dokey.

Just looking out for ya

There are a few trouble makers around here who like nothing better than to insult if you say something they don't agree with.

yeah true.thanks.

character50 stay sharp young one their are those who would make you feel bad to make themselves feel good.

*Bows* Wise words from Mainstream....

Yeah this thread has got to go. No reason to get people in a worse mood than they already are.

Oh well...See I never saw the sony man spider Doc...The movies yes what the hell you're talking about no. Sorry

Simply put, Man-Spider sucks.

Do me a favor and tell me why.

Those movies are about man spider, spider man is the one of the comics , not that guy from the movie.

Ok but wouldn't the ability of wall crawling,having a spider sense and having the proportionate strength of a spider also make him a Man-Spider by that logic??

No because unlike organics,those are cool abilitys and dont make him a monster.organics make him a monster because they are just plain gross and disgusting.thats the equivilant of shooting snot out of your body.blahhh.

Ohkay then...I agree then...This is a unnessasary thread...LOL

Please tell me why this thread should be closed down?
I am looking out for supporters not criticizers.
If you don't like this thread pls don't visit it.(no offence)

Organics took away from his character as the brilliant science whiz kid. When I 1st saw the movie and saw they were doing organics my reaction, genuinely was WTF!!!! When discusing it, someone commented that to be biologically accurate, it should be coming out of his butt. The trump all arguement seemed to be "do you want a movie or not?!"

no

I still say that if they were going to do organics at all, they should have at least saved it for the Spider-venom / alien-costume saga in a later film.

Originally posted by spidey-carnage
Please tell me why this thread should be closed down?
I am looking out for supporters not criticizers.
If you don't like this thread pls don't visit it.(no offence)

I know.Its funny how its only the people who liked the movies that keep coming on saying it should be closed.I mean geez,its just an opinion thread.

Xactly...But everyone is entitled to their opinion, Right?

Can't we all agree to just not see batman 5 return of the garbage?

Whats with you? you kept wanting to get this thread closed and you went and resurrected it? Not the best way to go about trying to get a thread closed dude.The Man-Spider movies are garbage not Batman Begins.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Whats with you? you kept wanting to get this thread closed and you went and resurrected it? Not the best way to go about trying to get a thread closed dude.The Man-Spider movies are garbage not Batman Begins. How was that? I hear crap but I'm scared to go....

you mean how was the man-spider movies crap,is that what your asking?

spiderman movies actually,there r no man-spider movies

Originally posted by Mr Parker
you mean how was the man-spider movies crap,is that what your asking? Batman Begins.

its only sino meaning -"spiderman in name only." because the movie totally betrayed his character and butchered it to death with those moronic organic webshooters. organics=man-spider,chemical webbing=spider-man,so we got stuck with the character of man-spider on the screen.

its not man-spider ok he is spiderman its just a nickname actually he is peter parker

I've never seen somebody complain about something as petty webshooters. Usually it something about the character's personality.

Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
I've never seen somebody complain about something as petty webshooters. Usually it something about the character's personality. True...But is Peter Parker was Born with those powers He'd be a Mutant and SHOULD go by the name as Man-Spider. But even if his Genetic make up is all screwed from the Spider He should still be called Man-Spider. The only time he should be called Spiderman is when He has his Metal Mechcancal web-shooters. But once again I will say....Take this Bull crap up with Sam and Stan.

ok look he he spiderman not man spider it sounds stupid as hell

Originally posted by spencerspider
ok look he he spiderman not man spider it sounds stupid as hell Thats because thats the name everyone grew up with

Originally posted by Spideys Sister
True...But is Peter Parker was Born with those powers He'd be a Mutant and SHOULD go by the name as Man-Spider. But even if his Genetic make up is all screwed from the Spider He should still be called Man-Spider. The only time he should be called Spiderman is when He has his Metal Mechcancal web-shooters. But once again I will say....Take this Bull crap up with Sam and Stan.
I think you should sit down for this. Spiderman... was always a mutant. Whether he has organic webbing or webshooters, he was mutated by that spider. Thing, Flash, Hulk, Mr. Sinister, all technically mutants.

The organic webbing and tiny hairs are just there so the audience doesn't have to sit through Pete inventing the webshooters and explaining he sticks to walls electromagnetically or whatever. Who would he explain this stuff to?

If that us the only thing you didslike aboot the movie then I can proudly say, GET OVER IT.....I personally don't mind the idea but but what else is there so bad aboot the movie?

Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
I think you should sit down for this. Spiderman... was always a mutant. Whether he has organic webbing or webshooters, he was mutated by that spider. Thing, Flash, Hulk, Mr. Sinister, all technically mutants.

The organic webbing and tiny hairs are just there so the audience doesn't have to sit through Pete inventing the webshooters and explaining he sticks to walls electromagnetically or whatever. Who would he explain this stuff to? Mutants are discribed as People BORN with thier powers. Spiderman isn't. He's classified as an illgal genectic mutation. Read ultimate Spiderman vol.9 I know everything about those issuses.

Originally posted by spencerspider
ok look he he spiderman not man spider it sounds stupid as hell

of course it SOUNDS stupid because your so used to hearing spiderman.But thats what he is now because of the very good explanation given by spideys sister.He's a manspider now.

i dont like it when people make fun of the movies i like. i mean... yeah.. thats just mean.

Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
I think you should sit down for this. Spiderman... was always a mutant. Whether he has organic webbing or webshooters, he was mutated by that spider. Thing, Flash, Hulk, Mr. Sinister, all technically mutants.

The organic webbing and tiny hairs are just there so the audience doesn't have to sit through Pete inventing the webshooters and explaining he sticks to walls electromagnetically or whatever. Who would he explain this stuff to?


errr no.The comics clearly classifys him as the NON mutunt Superhero.Now he is a mutant so this movie betrays his character.
and the way you get around him explaining that is he doesnt talk to anybody about it,where this movie failed as a spidey film was we should have heard his thoughts like in the comics and 90's cartoon where he would think to himself.With superman and batman,you dont need a movie to hear their thoughts.But spidey is a unique and different case.His appeal has always been that people could relate to him because we always got to hear his thoughts what he was thinking to himself which is what we do everyday in our lives so thats how you get around that is they should have had him thinking to himself and we get to listen to his thoughts.that totally sucked that they did not inlcude that in the movie.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
of course it SOUNDS stupid because your so used to hearing spiderman.But thats what he is now because of the very good explanation given by spideys sister.He's a manspider now. Thanks for that but I stick by what I'm saying about gentics.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
errr no.The comics clearly classifys him as the NON mutunt Superhero.
I'm obviously not talking about comics "mutant". Flash, Hulk, and Mr. Sinister aren't mutants but they are mutants by definition of the word.

How is he a mutant in the movies and comic Spidey not? They have practically identical origins except I think the movie spider might not of been radioactive.

I mean, both comic and movie Spidey are technically mutants. I'm just asking why you say movie Spiderman is a mutant.

Heavy "thought dialogue" would of made the movie crappy though.

For the most part, we can already tell what Pete is thinking from the body language and expressions in the movie and you can already tell he's an average joe from the condition of his life. Going into his pro-dork skills in making the webshooters, why he went with the spider theme, and the nature of his sticking powers would of either been rushed or eaten up time that could be used on the plot.

No it wouldnt have.This movie was complete crap anyway and that would have saved it from being crap.People would have seen what a unique character he was because of that.This movie was ajoke because at the end credits they played the 60's theme song of spiderman spiderman,radioactive spiderman.what the hell? there was no radioactive spider in that movie so why the hell was that theme in the song.wrong movie for that theme to be in. I t wouldnt have taken more than a two minute montage sequence to include the webshooters in the film which is crucial for his character to have.without the webshooters,he's just an ordinary Joe that you never get to see his scientific genuis demonstated..

and you can hardly tell what his exact thoughts are.Forever the apologists.

I mean, both comic and movie Spidey are technically mutants. I'm just asking why you say movie Spiderman is a mutant.


Because before,he was still human,with organics,he has now mutated into a monster so movie spiderman is a mutant.Thats why he is a Man-Spider now.

Actually, yeah. I've never, ever known a character to think. That's what makes Spiderman unique. Unlike every sentient being on Earth, he thinks.

Thought dialogue would of been redundant. In a comic, thoughts like "I can barely hang on!" are useful because they are still images. But in a movie when you see something slipping out of his grip we can already tell he's having trouble holding the object and don't need to hear "I can barely hang on!"
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Because before,he was still human,with organics,he has now mutated into a monster so movie spiderman is a mutant.Thats why he is a Man-Spider now.
How do you think comic spiderman jumps so high and dodges bullets and sticks to walls? The spider mutated his body so he's stronger and faster and can stick to stuff.

For a Spider-Man movie to be faithful from the comicbook thought dialogue is a must.I was just watching a movie that had Cher in it the other day,a movie that had thought dialogue in it and I was thinking-those idiots could have learned something from this director on how to make a movie work with thought dialogue in it.At least the cartoon writers from the 90's show understood that was a must for spidey.they should have been in charge of making these movies.

How do you think comic spiderman jumps so high and dodges bullets and sticks to walls? The spider mutated his body so he's stronger and faster and can stick to stuff.

Yeah but those are cool powers so he wasnt a monster before,organics are gross and disgusting making him a monster now so he has become a man-spider.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Yeah but those are cool powers so he wasnt a monster before,organics are gross and disgusting making him a monster now so he has become a man-spider.
Nooo... that's not how being a mutant works. He was physically mutated from that radioactive spider in the comics. He may not look like the Toxic Crusader but he was mutated none-the-less.

Maybe so,the mutant thing has never been my argument,thats been other peoples argument.MY complaint about the movies is that comic spider-man was NOT a monster,movie spider-man IS so he is Man-Spider because he is a damn monster now.

Comic Spiderman is a monster. Who jumps that high? Who's that strong? Monsters. That's who.

No comic spiderman is NOT a monster.Those are all cool powers we would all love to have.Organics on the other hand is just plain gross and disgusting.thats the equivilant of shooting snot out of your body.again,organics=man-spider,chemical shooters=spider-man.

Well, I guess that's your opinion.

It doesn't really qualify as monstrous though if sticking to walls doesn't make you a monster.

sure it does,you just dont want to admit it like so many others that this movie butchered to death his character and dont want to face it that this movie is a fraud.

I've never seen anybody gripe about such a minute part of a character.

Yeah your one of those people that could care less how badly they raped to death his character like they did and are just happy to see the name spiderman on the screen.

I'm just happy it didn't suck like all the Batman movies. I'm not nearly petty enough to shun a move over something as minor as webshooters.

Tell me, did you like the X-Men movies?

No I did not like the xmen movies and thats the biggest lie of the century that organic webshooters are a minor change.Btw,it was a LOT more than just organics that ruined that horrible Man-Spider movie for me,thats just for starters,it was horribly written with a horrible screenplay.BTW,if it had not been for Batman Begins,then you would be correct about how all the Batman movies sucked because just like spiderman,those movies butchered to death his character as well.But Batman Begins erased all those nightmare movies from the past and they FINALLY made a great Batman movie.

Organic webbing is a minor change. What if they were in the movie? What would change? Other than the team eaten up to explain them. There'd be nothing sans maybe a bit where he has to change carts.

I heard Batman Begins sucked too. I don't think I'm going to see it in the theaters though so I guess I'll have to wait to see for myself.

Just because you HEARD it sucks that hardly means it sucked and yet you said it sucked without even seeing it? you man-spider fans got the craziest logic.

and stop it with the lies.Its a MAJOR change.With organics,any dumb idiot like Flash Thompson could have been bitten by that spider and become man-spider like peter did,but with the chemical webbing,Peter demonstrates his scientific genius.Not just anybody could have been smart enough to mix those chemicals together to complete his powers like he did.I can see just like all man-spider fans though,you cant be reasoned with and deal with the fact that this was a MAJOR change that butchered to death his character so Im through trying to reason with you on this.you clearly cant be.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Just because you HEARD it sucks that hardly means it sucked and yet you said it sucked without even seeing it? you man-spider fans got the craziest logic.
I didn't say it sucked. Reread my post a few times.

But if must suck if they didn't have the classic batmobile! THEY BUTCHERED THE CHARACTER!

Uhh... anybody could of became spiderman in the comics too. Possibly without the web slinging which spiders don't do anyway.

Didn't he get the formula from someone else?

If liked watching explanations instead of plots then instructional videos would be more popular.

And I found something interesting that summed up my feelings on the subject from the superhero hype board about which was worse, the goblin suit or organic webbing.

I read down a little further and realized they were talking about you.

Organics are a major change to Peter's character. Having organics didn't show Peter's brilliance to make them, which I thought, was a big let down and proved that it wasn't loyal to the comics. Although I agree with mostly everything Mr Parker said, I wouldn't consider to be a monster. Having webs coming out of his wrists is logically wrong. If he were to have organics, technically, it would come out of his butt. Since the writer of the movie is such an idiot, he decided to take the chance to give him organics despite the fact that it's not logical, as to where Web-shooters would have been better. Ultimately, this debate is becoming very childish & immature. I will also stick by my decision that Organics were a mistake.

Yeah thats another major problem with the major change to organics is that there is no logical reason for the webs to shoot of his wrists at all.None at all.Logically they would shoot out of his butt.

Logically, people wouldn't stick to walls and tiny 4 oz. bottles of web fluid wouldn't shoot a zillion feet.

And his brilliance is shown with him understanding all the talk on fusion and stuff and the accomplished scientists knowing about the young up-n-comer.

Well in fairness logic does not apply to alot of aspects in Spider-Man's world.

Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
Logically, people wouldn't stick to walls and tiny 4 oz. bottles of web fluid wouldn't shoot a zillion feet.

And his brilliance is shown with him understanding all the talk on fusion and stuff and the accomplished scientists knowing about the young up-n-comer.

Thanks for proving to me like all the apologists do for the shortcomings and failures of these films what an idiot Raimi sounds like when he made his speech for why he was going to include organics in the movie.His absurd and laughable reasoning for not including the mechs in the film was he says that the general audience would have a hard time relating to a kid who could create a chemical that no 3M multi corporation company could ever create? what the hell,when was spiderman ever about realism? this is about a guy who walks on walls and sticks to them and has superhuman strength because of a spiderbite and thats suppose to be believable? give me a break,if anything,thats just as much unbelievable as a teenage kid creating a fluid no scientists have created.To Raimi's stupid reasoning BACK TO THE FUTURE should never have been made because that movie is not realistic either. the only reason the mechs were not included in the film like they should have been for a true spidey fan is because it was just sheer laziness on Raimi's part so he came up with the lame ass lie of his for the reasoning of the organics.

okay I did not dismiss you from class earlier so I can see why you are still here posting so I will do it in a minute.Remember organics=man-spider, chemical webbing=spiderman.This version of sonys butchered to death his character,the movie is a fraud. You learned something today.you can leave now.

class dismissed.

Uhh... do you even know what you're talking about anymore? You wanted Spiderman shown as more of an average person but you want him running around created insanely complex web shooting devices and thinking about the mechanics of electromagnetics and how they apply to his wall crawling?

You're just too overly critical.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Mr. Parker and I have had discussions about this and I agree with him. Man-Spider only applies to Sony's Spiderman. The original Spiderman from marvel is a scientist who builds and creates his own webbing. His superpowers came after the fact he was bitten by a radio active spider. Thus, the title is more fitting in the comics as Spiderman. But the version from Sony does no justice to the character. He is fully mutated (which I won't go on with this because is a whole different topic) and shoots his webbing from his organic body. That makes him a mutant. Whereas the Comic Book version clearly explained he was not a mutant when Spidey transformed himself into the Man-Spider saga in which he grows 4 arms.

Just recently Mr Parker and I discuss the issue of Batman. A friend of my was introduced into our logic of Man-Spider. But he rejected that logic by making the statement that the same can be said about Batman. Meaning that it would be more logical to call him Man-Bat. But this is where his logic fails. Batman has no superpowers nor did he became a bat. However! Batman has an adversary known as Man-Bat. This Man-Bat has the similar case as Spiderman. Man-Bat is illogical for Batman (Bruce Wayne) because there is no organic change from a man to an animal nor there is a mutation. Bruce chose the symbol of the bat (for discussion purposes we will use the word "chose" in this case. This could be argued later in another thread) to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. Within time he became a myth, a legend, and finally a reality for the crime world in Gotham.

With Superman is a totally and different case. Superman was not born a man first and then gain powers. He was born with his super powers at child birth. Thus "Man-Super" does not apply. Is a bit tricky with these names.

Examples Captain America was not really a Captain he was a private.

Mr Fantastic was not really fantastic he was first Scientist Reed Richards and then became Mr Fantastic by accident.

A clear example is Thor. Much like Superman Thor was born with his powers and then he created his secret identity. You can't call him Man-Thor because is ludicrous and the same with Superman.

Superman was not born with his powers...he was borna normal krypton baby when he was sent to earth the confinement and earths bering 1000 years before the krypton planet made him so he had all his powers.
And I dont even like Superman.

Originally posted by 28Dave37
Superman was not born with his powers...he was borna normal krypton baby when he was sent to earth the confinement and earths bering 1000 years before the krypton planet made him so he had all his powers.
And I dont even like Superman.
Actually, he was born with his powers per se. He just had to be under a yellow sun for them to work.

Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
Actually, he was born with his powers per se. He just had to be under a yellow sun for them to work. Never heard something like that....In JL he goes underwater a few times...no sun

How deep underwater? Unless it was pretty far down the sunlight would still come through.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_10.htm

Originally posted by Next Venom_girl
How deep underwater? Unless it was pretty far down the sunlight would still come through.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_10.htm Bottom..Atlantis with Aquaman.

Then you're right, supes shouldn't have powers down there.

He's like a battery. He doesn't immediately lose his powers but he will run out of energy if he's out of the sun's rays for too long.

Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
He's like a battery. He doesn't immediately lose his powers but he will run out of energy if he's out of the sun's rays for too long. Did you see the Episode where Aquaman lost his hand? Thats what I'm saying...but back to the topic....

You can't count cartoons as canon.

Why not???

ha! a spider getting bitten by a radioactive man

to the tune of the theme tune from the first spider-man cartoon

Man-spider, Man-spider,
does whatever a man can do,
sits on his arse,
watching TV,
man-spider is a man to be.
Watch out! here comes the man spider.

thats what the theme in the manspider movie should have been,instead they were stupid enough to included the 60's cartoon theme at the end of the first manspider movie despite the fact he wasnt even bitten by a radioactive spider in the movie.There is so many things wrong with that movie such as that screwup,the movie is a joke.

Both movies Cash total is well over $300 Million dollars. Wow, What a screw up.

First Mr. Parker Your kool Spidey sense Sig should be your Avatar. Ok second The Movie shoulda been called Mary Jane, becuase Spidey would let the world die first and also what ever he does in the movie is based off Mary Jane.

Totally agree with mr parker. By the stupid excuse by Sam Raimi and sony that a kid creating a web fluid would be too unbelievle in a superhero movie , any fantasy movie could be done. Back to the future, a guy creating a time machine in a delorian, gosthbusters, three guys hunting spectres with laser rays, etc, never could be done. What a pathetic excuse.

Originally posted by Robo-Chocobo
Both movies Cash total is well over $300 Million dollars. Wow, What a screw up.

From a financial standpoint the movies were not a screwup,sony got what they wanted out of the movies,money which is all they cared about.They knew that spiderman was such an extremely popular character that no matter how god awful the scripts were for these movies,the movie would be a smash hit because of how movie goers had been waiting for ages for a spiderman movie to finally be made.From a financial point on making money which is all they were interested in,it wasnt a screwup,as far as a good quality spidey film being made,it was a screwup.The movies were nothing at all like the comicbooks.Thank god the comicbooks are nothing at all like these movies.The 90's cartoon show is by far much more of a superiour product on screen than these horrible manspider movies are.

Originally posted by Max Spidey 24
First Mr. Parker Your kool Spidey sense Sig should be your Avatar.

Believe me,I wish it was my avatar but I cant find anybody here that knows how to put it on for me.They say the size of it is too large for an avatar which is really weird especially since yours is bigger.
btw,I really love your sig as well.thats too cool.

Try right clicking it, then go to properties, and copy the adress, then try putting it up again. Good thing I got my big sinature up when I did because if I try to change anything on my profile and click update, It says My sig is to big, so I just leave it...And yes the 90s Spidey was the best.

...And yes the 90s Spidey was the best.

yes it sure was.They made some mistakes in that cartoon that were different from the comics as well that I also wasnt thrilled with but it was much more loyal to the source material those those horrible movies were and I can live with that because the toon at least had many more positives about it than negatives,that cant be said for the movies..spidey with the mechs is like batman without the batmobile or indiana jones without his whip or captain america without the shield.

Kingpin was waaaaay overused in that cartoon.That was my only gripe with it.

Yeah that was my main gripe with the cartoon as well and why I dont consider it a magical cartoon show like I do with Batman the animated series.Plus once again,just like the Man-Spider movies,they ruined it for me by not including gwen stacy in it.

Jesus! And I thought that I was over critical of movies! I might be digging my own grave admitting this in this thread, but I personally like the Spider-Man movies, but I do not love them. I think they are just as flawed as they are good. They say that only "Death and Taxes" are for certain, but they also forgot to include criticism of comic book films. There will never, never, (never x 10,000) be a comic book film made that no one person will moan and cry about. I have a better chance of growing boobs on my back while being struck by lightning after I fart the Star Spangled Banner than that happening. Yes, the movies are flawed. Organics ARE a sin, Peter's genius is not recognized, Gwen Stacey in not introduced, they cast a natural BLONDE to play red headed M.J.......... I could go on, and on and on. But I could also go on about all of the X-Men, Hulk, Daredevil, Superman, Batman, and all the other comic book flicks out there. Flawed as they are, they still are entertaining to most. There is only so much you can squeeze into a two hour movie with out making it a snoozefest. I wish very much that Spider-Man would have been better, but I think it wasn't all THAT terrible. Then again, I'm not the devoted Spider-Man fan that Mr. Parker is, am I? Personally my favorite character is the Savage Dragon, And HELL YES I would cry and moan if they made a terrible movie of him. So, I can understand where the animosity comes from, but why not just step back a few paces and look and see that it just a movie, and why not let yourself be entertained? Or am I about to be blasted here? LOL

Originally posted by Spideys Sister
Thats because thats the name everyone grew up with

although the explanation from wm makes sense he is still spiderman becouse thats HIS name, and his character no matter ,what, and yes i rather have your so called man spider, spiderman movie, rather than have none, cos raimi done a amazing work with the character. you should had read what cameron wanted to do with spiderman , then you would call it whatever man.....

and what did u want to call him? fly-man? that is what comics spider-man is a fly man, all his habilities is from a fly, remember web shooter is not a habilit is a mechanism peter made (forget the excuse they made that the spider who bite him taugh him to do web, let focus on a moment of inspirition and leave it alone) stan thogh that even on the 60 fly man wouldnt appeal (and i thank god for that) and though os spiderman with the "-" everyone forget, spider - man, so people dont relate his name with superman with no "-" .

think what u want, the movie is spider-man will continue to be and its done and all u can do is wimp becouse there never been a better adaptation, excepte the ultimate series, of the character of spider-man, they always crap on him, see the spider-crap unlimited, and spider-man from mtv...........

hmmmmm

Originally posted by Mr Parker
...And yes the 90s Spidey was the best.



no it waasnt is suckes so big......spiderman didnt have web shooter he has a star trek aparat on his wrist , wich entered within his body as he reloaded a magazine of web, its was baf animated, in fact they used the same scene in various epsodes to avoid animation a new one , poor music,and it sucked as shit

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Yeah that was my main gripe with the cartoon as well and why I dont consider it a magical cartoon show like I do with Batman the animated series.Plus once again,just like the Man-Spider movies,they ruined it for me by not including gwen stacy in it.

two things parker, gwen apeared in 90s cartoon, but she had no place as peter love afair, and plus i would hate to see her there, just to see her dieng again.....they used mj instead,
and the movie goes with the same thing becouse, when spiderman fist came, who the f*ck would now it would be a hit a there would be a second movie? so they planted mj blended with gwen to be peter affair, since in the comics she is the one peter stays with,thats make no diference at all.

and yeah, i would love to see gwen in screen, i love her, mj is just a good, real good seconde prize, but there is no time to plot her in screen within the history they made. . better off i would cry if i saw her dieng on screen and rampage marvel office, sonys too

Originally posted by Spiderman_RJ
two things parker, gwen apeared in 90s cartoon, but she had no place as peter love afair, and plus i would hate to see her there, just to see her dieng again.....they used mj instead,
and the movie goes with the same thing becouse, when spiderman fist came, who the f*ck would now it would be a hit a there would be a second movie? so they planted mj blended with gwen to be peter affair, since in the comics she is the one peter stays with,thats make no diference at all.

The death of gwen stacy comic is a big moment in spidey's life, its one of the many things that reminds us hes human, he cant save everyone. This is a major disappointment to spidey comic fans because of the switcharoo of gwen for mj. It would have definitely been better like the original story goes but no, it has to remain watchable to kids(Oh! dont forget the kids now!) But yes it is a crappy path to go to completely leave out gwen.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Thanks for proving to me like all the apologists do for the shortcomings and failures of these films what an idiot Raimi sounds like when he made his speech for why he was going to include organics in the movie.His absurd and laughable reasoning for not including the mechs in the film was he says that the general audience would have a hard time relating to a kid who could create a chemical that no 3M multi corporation company could ever create? what the hell,when was spiderman ever about realism? this is about a guy who walks on walls and sticks to them and has superhuman strength because of a spiderbite and thats suppose to be believable? give me a break,if anything,thats just as much unbelievable as a teenage kid creating a fluid no scientists have created.To Raimi's stupid reasoning BACK TO THE FUTURE should never have been made because that movie is not realistic either. the only reason the mechs were not included in the film like they should have been for a true spidey fan is because it was just sheer laziness on Raimi's part so he came up with the lame ass lie of his for the reasoning of the organics.

okay I did not dismiss you from class earlier so I can see why you are still here posting so I will do it in a minute.Remember organics=man-spider, chemical webbing=spiderman.This version of sonys butchered to death his character,the movie is a fraud. You learned something today.you can leave now.

class dismissed.

i must disagree in one point it wasnt lazyness, its was in the first script, they had a whole scene about it, and they had the prototype web shooter, wich i saw and was cool as hell, but the problem that came up was tha bump in the spiderman costuma, and how ilegitimate it would look like to have a magic shooter that disapear under your suit, in order for it to look cool, its said that raimi spent some money trying to make compatible suits to the shooter and make its bump less evident but it didnt worked so well in the screen test so they wiped it out, if u look in the net u can find those prototype, if i had never saw them, i would not really miss it, but it was a pity.....

Originally posted by snake_eyes616
The death of gwen stacy comic is a big moment in spidey's life, its one of the many things that reminds us hes human, he cant save everyone. This is a major disappointment to spidey comic fans because of the switcharoo of gwen for mj. It would have definitely been better like the original story goes but no, it has to remain watchable to kids(Oh! dont forget the kids now!) But yes it is a crappy path to go to completely leave out gwen.

if you go that way,u should have to make peter date betty first what is impossible since perter goes to dayly bugle in the middle of the movie, and make him meet and date betty after all he is a dork.......

I thought Betty's character was too much like Lois Lane. tomato

Originally posted by Next Venom_girl
I thought Betty's character was too much like Lois Lane. tomato

Yeah she really didn't have her own style. Gwen and Mj you can relate to and they have personalities.

Originally posted by Spiderman_RJ
although the explanation from wm makes sense he is still spiderman becouse thats HIS name, and his character no matter ,what, and yes i rather have your so called man spider, spiderman movie, rather than have none, cos raimi done a amazing work with the character. you should had read what cameron wanted to do with spiderman , then you would call it whatever man.....

and what did u want to call him? fly-man? that is what comics spider-man is a fly man, all his habilities is from a fly, remember web shooter is not a habilit is a mechanism peter made (forget the excuse they made that the spider who bite him taugh him to do web, let focus on a moment of inspirition and leave it alone) stan thogh that even on the 60 fly man wouldnt appeal (and i thank god for that) and though os spiderman with the "-" everyone forget, spider - man, so people dont relate his name with superman with no "-" .

think what u want, the movie is spider-man will continue to be and its done and all u can do is wimp becouse there never been a better adaptation, excepte the ultimate series, of the character of spider-man, they always crap on him, see the spider-crap unlimited, and spider-man from mtv...........

the movie didnt show his true character though because he is not the monster sony and raimi have made him into. the 90's toon was a much better adaptation by far,at least he had the mechs.

Wow thats real mature.You cuss me out over my last post which I addressed to you in a civilized way and you say YOUR being reasonable and claim "I'M" being childish and tell ME to grow up? Wow the truth really hurts you I see.Yeah I got better things to do than waste my time arguing with you as well.meet my ignore list. I think I will movie on to Impediment,at least he doesnt cuss me out over a stupid movie.

Originally posted by snake_eyes616
The death of gwen stacy comic is a big moment in spidey's life, its one of the many things that reminds us hes human, he cant save everyone. This is a major disappointment to spidey comic fans because of the switcharoo of gwen for mj. It would have definitely been better like the original story goes but no, it has to remain watchable to kids(Oh! dont forget the kids now!) But yes it is a crappy path to go to completely leave out gwen.

Yeah it was totally inexcusable for them to leave Gwen out completely.

As far as the title of the thread goes, "Man-Spider or Spider-Man", if some people want to argue semantics then, yes, let him be entitled "Man-Spider" since it is only fitting. Just look at Batman and the monstrosity Man-Bat. Two VERY big differences yet similar to say the least. He is titled batMAN because he is a man dressing up as a bat, and its called manBAT since its a humanoid BAT thing. I, myself, wouldnt go so far as to call him "monster" because of his organics and 'cause he doesnt have eight eyes and eat flies, but Peter Parker is a genius pure and simple, thats what makes him unique among others. Sure, he isn't up to par with, say, Reed Richards but he is still a scientist and inventor. His webslingers are a testament to such intellects, and are the IMITATION of a spider hence his name. Organic webs mutated into his anatomy are preposterous and an insult to the character, and Sam Raimi, Avi Arad, and whoever else opted to give Peter organics need to be kneecapped.

Originally posted by Impediment
Jesus! And I thought that I was over critical of movies! I might be digging my own grave admitting this in this thread, but I personally like the Spider-Man movies, but I do not love them. I think they are just as flawed as they are good. They say that only "Death and Taxes" are for certain, but they also forgot to include criticism of comic book films. There will never, never, (never x 10,000) be a comic book film made that no one person will moan and cry about. I have a better chance of growing boobs on my back while being struck by lightning after I fart the Star Spangled Banner than that happening. Yes, the movies are flawed. Organics ARE a sin, Peter's genius is not recognized, Gwen Stacey in not introduced, they cast a natural BLONDE to play red headed M.J.......... I could go on, and on and on. But I could also go on about all of the X-Men, Hulk, Daredevil, Superman, Batman, and all the other comic book flicks out there. Flawed as they are, they still are entertaining to most. There is only so much you can squeeze into a two hour movie with out making it a snoozefest. I wish very much that Spider-Man would have been better, but I think it wasn't all THAT terrible. Then again, I'm not the devoted Spider-Man fan that Mr. Parker is, am I? Personally my favorite character is the Savage Dragon, And HELL YES I would cry and moan if they made a terrible movie of him. So, I can understand where the animosity comes from, but why not just step back a few paces and look and see that it just a movie, and why not let yourself be entertained? Or am I about to be blasted here? LOL

Okay first to address this first post of yours.No Im not overly critical of movies,just unlike most people that go into the spiderman section can spot crap when I see it when its so plain right there in front of everybodys eyes.Trust me you only dig your grave if you come to this section and say you DONT like it.Now if you went to this one website I used to love to post at but cant anymore since it no longer exists called no organic webshooters.com,that place you would be digging your grave at saying that.That was a site that dozens of people used to post at venting their anger over the organics before the first film came out and did not want to see this movie made because of it.But the site doesnt exist anymore. Im not over critical of films its just unlike most people here I dont have low standards.I have high standards for a comicbook film.

Well glad to see you see the light here at least that organics are a sin and that Petes genius was not recognized in the film. True there is only so much you can squeeze into a two hour film but leaving out things the mechs was just inexcusable.again it was done just because of lazy film making.Of those comicbook movies you mentioned,I will just comment on a couple of them,Superman and Batman.Superman one and two are one of a kind magical awesome movies.The reason they are is because they stayed loyal to the source material and had a great story both times.Superman 3 the story was pretty bad and thats when the movies got bad as well.Now before Batman Begins was released recently,the sad truth is hollywood had not made a good Batman film.The storys to those films were a joke and horribly written.Those movies like the manspider movies did,totally butchered to death his character especially the first two Batman movies by making Batman into a killer who killed people in cowardly ways.Tim Burton should never have been allowed near a batman franchice and either should Joel Schumacher because they clearly did not understand Batman.Thank God that Nolan and Goyer came along because they are a fans director unlike Burton and they understood the character of Batman.They made a point of it in that movie that Batman wont kill people to bring them to justice and they also did not repeat the mistakes made in the previous films that Burton and Schumacher made.Plus the storys were eomuch far better wriiten so that film would be right up there with Superman one and two as a great comicbook film as well.Richard Donner who directed superman or Nolan should direct a Spiderman movie because they care about the fans.Raimi obviously does not and was so much the wrong director to be making these films.He should be tarred aand feather for these horrible movies he produced because they were not at all loyal to the source material unlike Batman Begins or Superman one and two.

Well said Mr. Parker

I totally agree on the first two Superman flicks, except for two small things that REALLY chapped my ass. First is in part one, when Supes flies around the Earth to reverse the rotation to "turn back time" to save Lois after the earthquake. *ugh*........and second was in part two when Lois was given amnesia by a "magical kiss" from Big Blue. *ugh*..............And I didnt mean to say that YOU, Mr. Parker, were over critical of movies. I meant the general emotion of the thread thus far by everyone who has posted. As a loyal comic reader and fan, I would expect nothing less from my "bretheren" than to have the highest of expectations, such as yourself. What I meant to say was: Will there ever be a point to where we can all unite as one and agree/disagree on movie adaptations without emotions flaring? Or was I 101% correct when I said never, never, never x 1,000? Also I agree on all 4 previous Batman films, especially the fact that he killed the Joker and Penguin like a damn coward. That isnt the Dark Knight!

he does kill has al ghul so he is still a murderer

batman begins is not all that u think, ur problem is that u had so much crap that u are now idolizing one decent act, batman has a lot igredients from comics, but is not Totaly loyal......but much closer as it can be

Oh man Batman said I wont kill that guy, then throws that heated shit killing 50 ninjas. Then the man kills ras.

Originally posted by Impediment
I totally agree on the first two Superman flicks, except for two small things that REALLY chapped my ass. First is in part one, when Supes flies around the Earth to reverse the rotation to "turn back time" to save Lois after the earthquake. *ugh*........and second was in part two when Lois was given amnesia by a "magical kiss" from Big Blue. *ugh*..............And I didnt mean to say that YOU, Mr. Parker, were over critical of movies. I meant the general emotion of the thread thus far by everyone who has posted. As a loyal comic reader and fan, I would expect nothing less from my "bretheren" than to have the highest of expectations, such as yourself. What I meant to say was: Will there ever be a point to where we can all unite as one and agree/disagree on movie adaptations without emotions flaring? Or was I 101% correct when I said never, never, never x 1,000? Also I agree on all 4 previous Batman films, especially the fact that he killed the Joker and Penguin like a damn coward. That isnt the Dark Knight!

Oh I see what you mean.That part of Superman changing the rotation of the planet never bothered me like it does some people such as yourself because after all,he is superman. But yeah I also thought that was a little silly in superman 2 when he made her forget with a magical kiss.Thats the difference though in the superman movies and the manspider movies though is that in superman there are just like a couple of goofy moments where in the manspider movies,the list is countless on the incredible stupid mistakes that went on in those movies that the movies looked like they were written by a 5 year old with far more negatives than positives in them,seriously.Especially the first one.The second one was half way decent I will admit mainly because of the special effects,but it doesnt even come close to being a great film like Batman Begins however.

Yeah Burton totally betrayed the comicbook by not only killing people but The Joker as well.That was the biggest sin of the movie,him killing his arch enemy. He should have gone to jail at the end for that regardless of the jokers past deeds instead of being treated like a damn hero.Thats the kind of horrible screenwriting I am talking about that was present in the previous four batman movies and the manspider movies.Where Begins was more realistic when the commissiner said something like-Hunt him down,nobody takes the law into their own hands,not in my town.Thats much more realisitc because the law would never allow someone to take the law into their own hands.

Originally posted by Batman Wins
Oh man Batman said I wont kill that guy, then throws that heated shit killing 50 ninjas. Then the man kills ras.


Batman never killed Ras Al Goul.One of the timbers from the roof came down and landed on him during his swordfight and killed him.Also the ninjas started running away when he set the place on fire.If Bruce got out before the explosion took place then more than likely the other ninjas escaped as well since they had much more time to get out than Bruce so I seriously doubt they died.

Originally posted by snake_eyes616
Well said Mr. Parker

Thanks my man.

I hate Spiderman now, they milking the mans ass. I hate Spiderman, I hate him. I loved him before Sony Milked him.. Web out of his handsss, mary jane orgasms every movie. Story is About Mary Jane and how again in 2 did Spiderman loose his powers ?? then get it back out of the blue. Aslo in part 1...genetic super spiders bull shit, that mean the people researching them Spiders, will get bitten sooner or later and they will be 5000000 Spidermans. I like the 90s cartoon when they were watching some sick shit and the spider was not even seen and got caught in it. small spider not some nasty big ****

Well dont hate the character Spider-Man .Just hate Sony and Raimi for how they raped to death his character like they making him into a damn monster.Yeah that was so stupid him losing his powers and then getting them back out of the blue.totally stupid.Raimi has no creativity,he just feels the need to copy the superman films.Yeah you are so right as well about all those genetic spiders lying around.Thank you for bringing that up,those examples you mentioned are what I am talking about on how these movies look like they were written by a 5 year old.That spider didnt even die,it would have walked off and bit several more people-it obviously likes to bite and we would have had hundreds of spidermen swinging around town.inexcusable horrible screenwriting and yeah manspider 2 was so stupid how it was all about one girl.a spiderman movie should NEVER be about one girl.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Well dont hate the character Spider-Man .Just hate Sony and Raimi for how they raped to death his character like they making him into a damn monster.Yeah that was so stupid him losing his powers and then getting them back out of the blue.totally stupid.Raimi has no creativity,he just feels the need to copy the superman films.Yeah you are so right as well about all those genetic spiders lying around.Thank you for bringing that up,those examples you mentioned are what I am talking about on how these movies look like they were written by a 5 year old.That spider didnt even die,it would have walked off and bit several more people-it obviously likes to bite and we would have had hundreds of spidermen swinging around town.inexcusable horrible screenwriting and yeah manspider 2 was so stupid how it was all about one girl.a spiderman movie should NEVER be about one girl.

Lol I understand being about a girl maybe the first one, but I think ever Spiderman going to have it....You know what im going to watch spdierman right now and as i see whats wrong with it ill type it

I acualy like jamason in the movies lol i dn why. ok so far Spiderman said kids stay out of the street, and the kids said, yes mr spiderman...ogod how that bothers me...


Oh my god the aunt may scenes pisseddd me off. I hate her so ****ing much.


1. at the bank
2. when she hit dock ock in the face on the building
3. when she got made at pete, when he said he killed uncle ben

yeah its pretty sad that Jameson has more with and more wit and wise cracks in these manspider movies than Spiderman himself does.

damn that Aunt may grrrrr. Also Mary jane shows her nipples in every movie...just a side note....also the mushy mushy crap.. and the cheesy stuff like oh spiderman is not dead,pete i love u no i dont like wise no wait. Also how she just leave her wedding...what a ***** i would of smakced her around.



Oh god and the doctor shit.

whats wrong peter

heart break and then he said something after


Oh yeah im up to the part where the two little black kids saw pete flip over a car and asked how he do that, and he goes eat your green vegetables.....that was so gay, they should of known hes spiderman.

Omg I just noticed that across the street in that same scene there was mad people looking..so wtf, they dont care or something that he flipped over a car. Omg it gets worse, theres mad people also behind the two kids that saw, and they looking dead at him too.

Oman also just because they found his costume in the trash doesnt mean he quit....im half way through

Yeah spider-man only thinks about quiting ,but he decides not too. A lot of heroes have done that before.

Originally posted by doctorstrongbad
Yeah spider-man only thinks about quiting ,but he decides not too. A lot of heroes have done that before.

Yeah but Spidey does it 500000 and its anoying. The Selfish ****

Originally posted by Batman Wins
Yeah but Spidey does it 500000 and its anoying. The Selfish ****

Yeah but he is one of the best heroes out there at least he doesn't brake the law like some people.. cough... batman.... cough

This answer your question.

Originally posted by doctorstrongbad
Is this entire thread a joke? Mr. Parker would always complain about the spider-man movies. I think he was almost banned several times. If you don't believe me you can read his old posts. Are you guys trying to get him to come back?
Originally posted by Doc Ock
I agree.

This thread was not necessary and just an obvious attempt to provoke a flame war.

Pathetic.

I agree

I don't understand what you people have against organics. And I don't know how "Man-Spider" Would refer to the movie. He's still more man than spider.

Because unlike you,we care about Hollywood raping to death a great character turning him him into a monster making him Man-Spider instead of Spider-Man.

Dude! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE HAS ORGANICS!

They could've had Spider-Man come from a different planet, and it would be good as long as the story was good.

You're too wrapped up in the things they changed in the movie to bother with appreciation on how hard they worked on creating the films!

They had excellent story telling and some pretty good actors.

Spider-Man could have absolutely NO powers, and it just be about Peter Parker, and it would still make a wonderful film.

Yet all you care about is that it wasn't true to the comics!

For the last time, No movie is true to their books, and that goes for superhero movies, too.

the books are really just reference points for the movies!

I mean, Lord of the Rings had cut out so many things in their films, and I mean A LOT of stuff was taken out and changed. And look how great that movie was! Same thing with Harry Potter, particularly Prisoner of Azkaban!

The X-Men was pretty far with the comic books, too. And that was pretty good.

Spider-Man was a great movie, and you seem to be too overshadowed by the organics to agree!

I personally think you're going at this all the wrong way! And you can argue about it all you want! But I'm sticking to my opinion!

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
Dude! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE HAS ORGANICS!

They could've had Spider-Man come from a different planet, and it would be good as long as the story was good.

You're too wrapped up in the things they changed in the movie to bother with appreciation on how hard they worked on creating the films!

They had excellent story telling and some pretty good actors.

Spider-Man could have absolutely NO powers, and it just be about Peter Parker, and it would still make a wonderful film.

Yet all you care about is that it wasn't true to the comics!

For the last time, No movie is true to their books, and that goes for superhero movies, too.

the books are really just reference points for the movies!

I mean, Lord of the Rings had cut out so many things in their films, and I mean A LOT of stuff was taken out and changed. And look how great that movie was! Same thing with Harry Potter, particularly Prisoner of Azkaban!

The X-Men was pretty far with the comic books, too. And that was pretty good.

Spider-Man was a great movie, and you seem to be too overshadowed by the organics to agree!

I personally think you're going at this all the wrong way! And you can argue about it all you want! But I'm sticking to my opinion!

Seriously who cares about organics. I really like it better this way anyway. Who heard of making webbing going that far, and so much that fits in a little thing. Every second he worries about refilling the web. I love the idea that it is organics. The Spiderman movies are good. Be grate full they even made a Spiderman movie, thats very good.

Originally posted by Superman 24
Seriously who cares about organics. I really like it better this way anyway. Who heard of making webbing going that far, and so much that fits in a little thing. Every second he worries about refilling the web. I love the idea that it is organics. The Spiderman movies are good. Be grate full they even made a Spiderman movie, thats very good.

I totally agree.

And not just that, but a Spider-Man movie with an excellent story plot.


And organic webs make about as much sense as laser vision, or claws coming out of a guy's fist.


As I've said thousands of times, there doesn't have to be a logical explanation for it!


We don't call Superman ManSuper just because ALL his powers are organic.


And if Batman somehow gained powers of a bat instead of using all gadgets, I doubt we'd call him ManBat. (not that I'd want him to gain powers of a Bat, though)


And I personally think the organics make Spider-Man's life a whole lot easier. He has enough problems as it is!

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
I totally agree.

And not just that, but a Spider-Man movie with an excellent story plot.


And organic webs make about as much sense as laser vision, or claws coming out of a guy's fist.


As I've said thousands of times, there doesn't have to be a logical explanation for it!


We don't call Superman ManSuper just because ALL his powers are organic.


And if Batman somehow gained powers of a bat instead of using all gadgets, I doubt we'd call him ManBat. (not that I'd want him to gain powers of a Bat, though)


And I personally think the organics make Spider-Man's life a whole lot easier. He has enough problems as it is!


One more thing, in Spiderman one, when he came out to wrestle,, the guy goes, whats you're name kid, and peter went the HUMAN SPIDER, and the guy goes, oh that sucks, and called hium Spiderman.

Whats the big deal, in this thread, about Spiderman ?

Originally posted by Superman 24
One more thing, in Spiderman one, when he came out to wrestle,, the guy goes, whats you're name kid, and peter went the HUMAN SPIDER, and the guy goes, oh that sucks, and called hium Spiderman.

Yeah, that part made me laugh.

Originally posted by Cathy X-23
Whats the big deal, in this thread, about Spiderman ?

I don't know. They're just making such a BIG deal out of Spider-Man having organics in the movies. It's ridiculous! They honestly have to pick the smallest things to argue about, when the movie was just excellent with its story. Who cares if he has organics or not, you should be paying more attention to the storyline and the quality.

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
I don't know. They're just making such a BIG deal out of Spider-Man having organics in the movies. It's ridiculous! They honestly have to pick the smallest things to argue about, when the movie was just excellent with its story. Who cares if he has organics or not, you should be paying more attention to the storyline and the quality.

So if you have a favorite character, and decide to give him an extra head, but has a good story. Would you mind ?

Originally posted by Batman Wins
So if you have a favorite character, and decide to give him an extra head, but has a good story. Would you mind ?

You do know that's a bad example, right? I mean adding something that wasn't even in a different form in the original story, is different from modifying something that was mechanical in the story, but was changed to organics. so really it's still keeping true to the fact that he could even shoot webs in the first place. growing another head or leg would just be silly, because it's always noticeable. the organic webbing is never noticeable, unless Spider-Man shoots it. so yeah, you just gave me a REALLY BAD example.

Besides, Organic webbing is better than Spider-Man not having webbing at all, as in absolutely no webshooters.

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
You do know that's a bad example, right? I mean adding something that wasn't even in a different form in the original story, is different from modifying something that was mechanical in the story, but was changed to organics. so really it's still keeping true to the fact that he could even shoot webs in the first place. growing another head or leg would just be silly, because it's always noticeable. the organic webbing is never noticeable, unless Spider-Man shoots it. so yeah, you just gave me a REALLY BAD example.

Besides, Organic webbing is better than Spider-Man not having webbing at all, as in absolutely no webshooters.

Oh so they find out that Spiderman got his powers from the spider but was really from kripyton, and escaped from supermans cage, but aslong as it gave spiderman powers, its ok ?