spiderman,er manspider movie,a piece of crap film

It wasn't that Peter was clever, it was a combination of his brains and the Spider-bite that gave him the KNOW-HOW on how to make webbing.

Even though he has organic webbing, it doesn't mean we won't ever see web-shooters in the movies. He could have organics AND web-shooters. This would let him have impact webbing and variants of the natural webbing. This I would like to see and maybe it would be a redeeming feature of the movie in the eyes of disgruntled fans such as Mr. Parker?

I understand how Mr. Parker fells, because one of the few things Spiderman The Movie did not show was Peters true genius. He was just a dork, an average dork. This meant that ANYBODY could have been Spiderman in the movie. This is not true, as only Peter Parker could have been the true Spiderman, because only Peter Parker could have been clever enough to create the webbing. That was what made the comic Spiderman so unique.

Also, having organics was always going to annoy fans of Parkers solutions to enemies. Parker would always go away, do some research then come back and kick butt when he found the answer. He would mix things into his webbing (like cement/gelatin into his webbing for Hydro-Man etc). It was all scientific. I can't really see the movie spiderman being anything more than an action hero who saves the day by just using skill alone. The comic villains were always more wary of spidermans skills, and that was why spidey had to beat them using his head.

Anyway, I like the movie, but I totallyunderstand where Mr.Parker is coming from, there maybe hope in the next film yet...........

I understand your point, Red Superfly. Rami explained that he didn't want to go with the web formula because it would take too much time. I would not have enjoyed seeing Peter develop his web formula in the same manner that they had him create his costume. You know, writing "How to create webbing (and web-shooters)?" on a notepad, then a 3 second shot of him in a lab and them WHAM... Web-shooters. You know what I mean?

In any case, I heard that they will introduce some form of web-shooter in one of the sequels. It might be to "upgrade" his organic webs. Maybe something to increase the length that he can shoot and to improve his accuracy. I don't know exactly, so we'll have to wait and see what they will do to show Peter's intelligence.

Just my two cents.

I DO miss him having moments like' oh shoot, out of web fluid!' and little things like that but making webs is about the best thing a spider does, it's weird that they didnt give him that power already in the first place. But the idea of the web-shooters is wonderful one on the other hand.

The webshooter s were wicked badass, but it would just be a little too much for most movie audiences to believe.

I used to wonder why Spiderman, who was bitten by a radioactive Spider after all, wouldn't be able to create webs. It made sense for him to recieve the knowledge rather than the supernatural power to just create them.

Just for the record, along with the web shooters, I would also love to see some of the neogenic nightmare plot in with the movie plot. I'd love to see a six-armed spidey on the big screen. It would explain to the general audience why Spiderman didnt grow extra arms when bitten - all it took was a matter of time. It would explain why Spiderman is the Spiderman we all know and love - he is the perfect balance of the mutations various stages.

This also explained why Parker never had organic webs. He only had organic webs when he mutated into his final form - the man-spider (and it makes perfect sense when you think about it too). That's why having organic webs in his current "spiderman" form doesn't make sense to a lot of fans.

I'd like to see him develop his spider-tracers.

And he might. In my opinion though, I would rather have him never come up with web shooters or spider tracers if they weren't done right. I have always gotten pissed off at movies when they just throw something in just to have it in the movie. If you think about it, the webshooters would not have worked because they would have been hard to explain how he made them, where the equipment came from, etc. I would rather have organic shooters that make sense webshooters that just appearded from no where.

Well said, mr Parker and well said gambit too. That stupid movie is only a betrayal to the comics and a total ashamed for the real spider man fans. That movie is only for the man spider fans, who would acept any kind of movie with only see a guy in a spider man costume. And as some man spider fans have said and is totally false, if peter would create organics webs for the bite of the spider, it would be FROM HIS BUTT, NOT FROM HIS WRISTS, BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THAT THE SPIDERS MAKE ITS WEB. And the part of the hair in the hands is totally stupid too because he uses gloves and boths. A least , people like gambit is a real spider man fan and could distinguish spider man from man spider understand that that movie and the sequel are total betrayal to the spirit of the comics and wont never be acepted by the true spider man fans.

YOU ARE THE REAL SPIDERMAN FANS! I SHALL JOIN YOUR NOBLE CAUSE!

BTW, that was sarcasm.

Originally posted by Zephonim
And he might. In my opinion though, I would rather have him never come up with web shooters or spider tracers if they weren't done right. I have always gotten pissed off at movies when they just throw something in just to have it in the movie. If you think about it, the webshooters would not have worked because they would have been hard to explain how he made them, where the equipment came from, etc. I would rather have organic shooters that make sense webshooters that just appearded from no where.

Very true.

An average film is about 120 minutes long. You simply can't satisfy all the wishes of the Spider-man fans in such a short time. Sacrifices have to be made. This guy wants more jokes, the other guy wants two different roles for Peter and Spidey, another one wants real webshooters instead of the organic ones. Then, off course, everybody has his idea of how the costume should look. And which bad guy should star in the movie. And so on, the list is endless...

I know Spider-man (I'm a fan) and I was quite happy with the film. Good acting, good costume of Spider-man, a bit of humour, great action scenes, fantastic webslinging and a story which was not too stupid ! And it featured lots of cameos from characters from the Spider-man world.

No, it could be worse. Much worse. Just look at the Hulk, or at The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Or look at Batman and Robin. Or Daredevil. All examples of bad or mediocre comic-adaptations.

Another person wants them to introduce multiple other characters and gice them all back stories. It's just not possible to put everything in the movie that everyone wants. The changes they made were minor enough to keep the story and ideas behind Spider-Man in tact. Plus, allot of the things that people are bitching about were not part of the original Spider-Man number 1 comics. Going back the whole way shows that the movie was based more on the original comics then on the new stuff.

Yeah like I said I'm staying neutral on this subject because I am agreeing with pretty much everyone that has something relevant to say on both sides of the fence.

However, I knew what to expect with the film. I had a HUGE feeling before anything about the film was revelaed, that the producers would give Spiderman organics. I had a huge feeling because it would make sense if you were making a film for the masses.

I appreciated the changes and knew that any on-screen adaptation would require comprimises.

And quit calling it Man-Spider, its really getting old.

I feel the same way on some things, but for the most case no one can give any good reasons for why they feel how they do.

Make your own web-shooters

Here's something I found that explains the reasons behind the change...

Raimi stays pretty darn close to the original material as penned by Stan Lee, only making minor changes to keep the story current.

For Spiderman fans the changes are glaring but within the context of the movie, they make sense. For example, Peter no longer has to create his webshooters - the spider bite has given him spinnerets in his wrists that fire an organic webbing.. In the original Spiderman stories, Peter Parker was a chemistry wiz kid and used his knowledge to create not only the webbing, but the web shooters.. This made perfect sense given the day and era in which Stan Lee wrote the original spiderman story.. Every kid either had, or wanted a Chemistry set.. it was the cool thing back in the 50's. Today, I'm not even sure you can buy a chemistry set anymore.

I read somewhere that they actually filmed a scene where Peter builds web-shooters and creates a formula for webs. They wanted to film it just in case. If it's true, they should have added it to the DVD. It would have added an additional 20 - 30 minutes to the film though.

In any case, it's been talked about for far too long now. The movie has been made. There's a sequel coming out. Get on with life.

That really makes allot of sense. I had never thought of it in that way.

Originally posted by Zephonim
Man-Spider.

Originally posted by Zephonim
Why Man-Spider? I know I have asked that question multiple times before, but nobody has ever given me an answer that justified why you called it that.

Boy you have memory problems or something because I have explained that to you SEVERAL times WHY he is manspider now.Because even though he does not have 8 arms or is hairy all ove like that photo of the "OTHER" MAN-SPIDER,he is "STILL" MAN-SPIDER because he is STILL a monster now because organics are just plain gross and disgusting simple as that.Let me spell it out for
you-O R G A N I C S=MAN-SPIDER simple as that.Spider-Man is a guy who has mechanical devices on his wrists,thats not the guy we saw on the screen from that photo you have of that stupid movie. 🙄 that photo you showed from that horrible movie is a monster who had webbing shooting out of his body,That is ALSO MAN-SPIDER in that photo. 🙄 Class dismissed.congrats you learned something for today that hopefully you will remember and hopefully you will have seen the light what I have been telling you all along that was the character of MAN-SPIDER you saw on the screen.

Originally posted by Bagtatta
I used LOTR example as to say, you can make anything work now. Gollum was a full out, 100% 3D character..just manned and voiced by a real person.

Goblin could've been that, the movies were being made around the same time were they not? I think if they WANTED to make Goblin look like the Goblin from the comics they could've, and he would've looked decent as well. It's just lazy film-making to me.

Boy you got that right Bagtatta,well said,I could not have said it better myself.If they really WANTED to make a good looking green goblin costume,they could have made a much better goblin costume than the one from the movie,but they did not use a cotume that was much more closer to the comic look or use the mechs either because like the well made point you just made,it was just plain lazy film making,nothing else.again,great point.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Spider-man exists over more than 40 years. That's two generations of readers who each have different ideas about Spider-man and the way he should behave in real life/in film. As a director of a Spider-man movie, you can't satisfy everybody. It is 100 % impossible.

You have almost thousands of Spider-man comics, hundreds of storylines and countless characters in the Spider-man universe. As a director, you can't focus your attention to all these people ! You have to make some choices, and sometimes eliminate stuff. A comic is not a film. The Spider-man movie was mainly made to make money, not to serve the comic-lovers. In order to make money, you have to reach the biggest audience imaginable. You can't do that while focusing on lots of rather unimportant things, like enough screen-time for Betty or Ben Urich or whatever. And the organic webshooters didn't bother me that much. In some ways, it even makes sense (a bit).

I thought the movie was great, because they really were able to show us a Spider-man who was webslinging above New York in a very realistic way while wearing a correct costume. It was acted pretty good, had a good casting and had some great fight scenes. I only regretted the laughable mask of Dafoe.

If you want to see a really, really bad comic adaption, then go see "Daredevil", "The Hulk", "The Punisher" (the old one with Dolph Lundgren), "The extra-ordinary league of gentlemen", any Batman movie, "From Hell" and so on. But Spider-man was certainly okay, he could be much, much worse...

please give me a break,you make me laugh,no man-spider is the movie to watch if you want to see a god awful comicbook movie adaptation.Daredevil is 10 times better than Man-spider,it was a lot more loyal to the comicbook by far.and please,the organics is what kept this movie from making it no 1 at the box office. because thousands boycotted the film because of it.Now the hulk, you have a case saying its worse than manspider because yeah it was a pretty bad film to,but daredevil? give me a break,DD was 10 times better than this horrible film was.

Originally posted by silvabullet
Wtf is organic webbing? The movie was great.

that was a joke about it being great right? 😆