The Spiderman / Manspider movie debate debacle.

Originally posted by who?-kid
It didn't make him worse either.

That comment I heavily disagree with.

Originally posted by Mr Zero
As daywalker says - blade has been changed drastically: Speaking as somone who devoured the Gene Colan Blade character way back in the day I can at least admit it would be MADNESS to have that on screen. A jive talking pimp-dude with an afro out killin' vamps? Blade needed an upgrade to work as a movie, and got a damn good one. Same with Spider-man.

well I didnt know that Im not a big blade fan I always thought he looked like that . but think about this. orgainc are a body fluid dose anybody besieds be mind that gross

Originally posted by Dark Vengeance
but think about this. orgainc are a body fluid dose anybody besides be mind that gross

I thought about it... and no... I don't find it gross or disturbing. Not one bit.

I have this feeling you really have a problem with body fluids. And can organic webs be considered as body fluids ? Don't know. And even so, I still don't mind them.

Originally posted by Daywalker
That alone should tell you something 🙄

it tells me were about the only ones that got any logic or common sense here.by the way vengence,were not the only ones,bakerboy september rain and a few others others have voted manspider in the spidermanmanspider thread?. 🙂

Originally posted by Daywalker
Well actually he did go through a drastic change from the old comics but if you're trying to make a point, my #1 hero is Batman. Now talk about drastic! My dark knight looks totally different. From spandex to a rubber suit with nipples. In comparison, I was done way worse than you Spidey fans but i'm not ready to blow up WB headquarters although i'd settle for stoning Joel Schuemacher in a town square 😆

Id settle for doing that to Tim Burton for making the worst casting choice in comicbook history. pudgy gut, receding hairline, half bald, short runt, michale keaton for tall, muscular, handsome, full set of hair bruce wayne and turning batman into a cowardly killer.as much as burton and schumacher BOTH screwed up the batman movies,sony screwed up the spiderman franchise much worse. 😠

Originally posted by Mr Parker
it tells me were about the only ones that got any logic or common sense here.by the way vengence,were not the only ones,bakerboy september rain and a few others others have voted manspider in the spidermanmanspider thread?. 🙂

Call it what you want but I just think you guys are a bit too anal about the Spider-Man character. 😎 😂 🙄

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Id settle for doing that to Tim Burton for making the worst casting choice in comicbook history. pudgy gut, receding hairline, half bald, short runt, michale keaton for tall, muscular, handsome, full set of hair bruce wayne and turning batman into a cowardly killer.as much as burton and schumacher BOTH screwed up the batman movies,sony screwed up the spiderman franchise much worse. 😠

I'll defend Tim because I enjoyed his vision and Michael Keaton did a great job as Batman. He brought the brooding dark knight back to life.

Joel turned Batman and Gotham into nothing but a cheap gimmick 😠 😠 😠 😠 and Spider-Man was nowhere near as bad as that.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Id settle for doing that to Tim Burton for making the worst casting choice in comicbook history. pudgy gut, receding hairline, half bald, short runt, michale keaton for tall, muscular, handsome, full set of hair bruce wayne and turning batman into a cowardly killer.as much as burton and schumacher BOTH screwed up the batman movies,sony screwed up the spiderman franchise much worse. 😠

Okay, I admit, I’m stupid… but please, make me smarter. How can anybody on this planet defend a Batman movie by saying it was still better than Spider-Man ? Do I really have to make a very, very, very… long list of all the changes that were made in these films ?

Let me rephrase that : a list of all the unnecessary changes that were made ? O man, I really wouldn’t know where to begin… it will take months.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact you prefer the Batman movies, but the thing I don’t understand is this : how can you possibly say that “sony screwed up the spiderman franchise much worse (than Batman)” when you know that only a few (unimportant changes) have been made in Spider-Man ?

i understand wy hardcore fans may like the webshooters instead of organics...added to the char...but this honestly isnt important....... i mean...so what...spiderman fights bonesaw...and organic webbing......and batman's chest becomes 90% rubber...who cares...as long as it doesnt ruin a movie....also I have had no reasons to belive organic webbing ruined spiderman...if anyone has any reasons(MAKE EM GOOD) then please share them and enlighten us

Originally posted by Zephonim
Don't care about his damn nickname. He's still a f#%@!ing pussy.

Originally posted by Robo-Chocobo
i understand wy hardcore fans may like the webshooters instead of organics...added to the char...but this honestly isnt important....... i mean...so what...spiderman fights bonesaw...and organic webbing......and batman's chest becomes 90% rubber...who cares...as long as it doesnt ruin a movie....also I have had no reasons to belive organic webbing ruined spiderman...if anyone has any reasons(MAKE EM GOOD) then please share them and enlighten us

Organic webbing did ruin Spiderman because the Spiderman character that many people know didn't have organic webbing, he had webshooters. This oversight has also made the character of Peter Parker more uninteresting because there is nothing to him in terms of weaknesses apart from his fragileness when he has a crisis of confidence or when (surprise, surprise, Mary Jane or Aunt May get captured). Because of organic webshooters no attempt was made by Sam Raimi to introduce Peter Parkers scientific background as a major part of his life, he just occasionally gets out his camera and then trouble arises and then he changes into his costume(coughSuperman rip-offcough) and with his unlimited webbing and super strength,agility; he beats the villian quite quickly and no villian of Spidermans was ever beaten in the first attempt so the concept of a major enemy like the Green Goblin being defeated so easy is ludricious.

Originally posted by Daywalker
I'll defend Tim because I enjoyed his vision and Michael Keaton did a great job as Batman. He brought the brooding dark knight back to life.

Joel turned Batman and Gotham into nothing but a cheap gimmick 😠 😠 😠 😠 and Spider-Man was nowhere near as bad as that.

so what if Keaton did a good acting job? Lawrence Olivia- who is considered the greatest actor in the world would not be right for that role,if the guy doesnt even come close to resembling the role then he should never be cast for it.Schumachers BATMAN FOREVER is by far my favorite because at least BATMAN in that movie was not a cold killer and killed people like a coward like he did in the first two films which goes against everything batman is,and michael keaton as batman is something you would think you would see on saturday night live because it was like watching al bundy walking around bruce wayne manor- a total joke. burton only cast keaton because he was friends with him and felt comfortable working with him,he did not care about getting the best choice possible,plus the villains were the main characters and bats was just a supporting character,at least Kilmer physically fit the role of Bruce Wayne.Tim Burton should NEVER have been allowed to go near a batman franchise. 😠

Originally posted by Robo-Chocobo
i understand wy hardcore fans may like the webshooters instead of organics...added to the char...but this honestly isnt important....... i mean...so what...spiderman fights bonesaw...and organic webbing......and batman's chest becomes 90% rubber...who cares...as long as it doesnt ruin a movie....also I have had no reasons to belive organic webbing ruined spiderman...if anyone has any reasons(MAKE EM GOOD) then please share them and enlighten us

all the organic webbing did was dumb down his character and took away his greatest scientific invention.with organics,any dumb sap like flash thompson could have gotten bitten by that spider and gained the powers that spiderman has and become spiderman,without the organics,it was clear that it was peters destiny to become spiderman because he had a scientific background and the knowledge to create the webbing that others did not have which makes him unique,he created the webbing to complete his powers which is unique,there is nothing unique about organics.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Okay, I admit, I’m stupid… but please, make me smarter. How can anybody on this planet defend a Batman movie by saying it was still better than Spider-Man ? Do I really have to make a very, very, very… long list of all the changes that were made in these films ?

Let me rephrase that : a list of all the [b]unnecessary changes that were made ? O man, I really wouldn’t know where to begin… it will take months.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact you prefer the Batman movies, but the thing I don’t understand is this : how can you possibly say that “sony screwed up the spiderman franchise much worse (than Batman)” when you know that only a few (unimportant changes) have been made in Spider-Man ? [/B]

a few? thats a laugh.I have not seen the 2nd one yet but I have TONS of many important pointless changes I could list that makes this movie a joke.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Ok guys I know im wrong about Spider-Man and the movie should've never been calld Man-Spider I was wrong think that...sorry 🙁

I forgive you 😎

Originally posted by Mr Parker
so what if Keaton did a good acting job? Lawrence Olivia- who is considered the greatest actor in the world would not be right for that role,if the guy doesnt even come close to resembling the role then he should never be cast for it.Schumachers BATMAN FOREVER is by far my favorite because at least BATMAN in that movie was not a cold killer and killed people like a coward like he did in the first two films which goes against everything batman is,and michael keaton as batman is something you would think you would see on saturday night live because it was like watching al bundy walking around bruce wayne manor- a total joke. burton only cast keaton because he was friends with him and felt comfortable working with him,he did not care about getting the best choice possible,plus the villains were the main characters and bats was just a supporting character,at least Kilmer physically fit the role of Bruce Wayne.Tim Burton should NEVER have been allowed to go near a batman franchise. 😠

Keaton didn't look like Bruce but despite what you say he looked great as Batman and played the role well (the best infact). As for the killing? s*&t happens 😎 Coward? riiiight 🙄

Batman Forever??? talk about a cheap gimmick geared towards kids. I really can't believe you liked that one. I liked it to an extent but I wouldn't place it at the top. Can't say I cared for the christmas tree ornament on wheels that they tried to pass off as the batmobile either. The people of Gotham would see Wayne Manor light up as soon as that thing came out of the cave 🙄 😂

Val was a good looking Batman but too bad he was just trying to be like Mike and he didn't do it very well. He made a great looking Bruce and he looked good in the batsuit. But why did he look good in the batsuit? Because he was so skinny and the suit created the look for him so there goes your muscular guy theory.

I can't believe you place that overinflated light show of a movie at the top and you have more of a problem with Spider-Man. It's like logic has left the building 🙄

Originally posted by who?-kid
I thought about it... and no... I don't find it gross or disturbing. Not one bit.

I have this feeling you really have a problem with body fluids. And can organic webs be considered as body fluids ? Don't know. And even so, I still don't mind them.

well in his glands they should be in a fluid state till air comes in contact I just find ropes coming out of somebody wrist a bit nasty. And what do you mean by "I have this feeling you really have a problem with body fluids" I just find it a bit to man-spider ish

Originally posted by Daywalker
Keaton didn't look like Bruce but despite what you say he looked great as Batman and played the role well (the best infact). As for the killing? s*&t happens 😎 Coward? riiiight 🙄

Batman Forever??? talk about a cheap gimmick geared towards kids. I really can't believe you liked that one. I liked it to an extent but I wouldn't place it at the top. Can't say I cared for the christmas tree ornament on wheels that they tried to pass off as the batmobile either. The people of Gotham would see Wayne Manor light up as soon as that thing came out of the cave 🙄 😂

Val was a good looking Batman but too bad he was just trying to be like Mike and he didn't do it very well. He made a great looking Bruce and he looked good in the batsuit. But why did he look good in the batsuit? Because he was so skinny and the suit created the look for him so there goes your muscular guy theory.

I can't believe you place that overinflated light show of a movie at the top and you have more of a problem with Spider-Man. It's like logic has left the building 🙄

sorry to tell you this dude but YES BATMAN was a coward in the first tow films.Putting that bomb in the pants of the penguin then throwing him over the wall and then going into the jokers hideout and not even in the batmobile at the time and dropping the bomb in front of them like he did? sorry buts as cowardly as you can get deal with it.BATS should have been wanted for murder at the end.horrible screen writing. The only reason KEATON looked good in the bat suit was they had to make a suit that made him look muscular because he was so out of shape and pudgy.It was confusing as hell seeing him look big and muscular with the bat suit on and when he took it off,somehow he went top being oudgy and out of shape,what a joke.at least with kilmer,when he had his batsuit on,I could believe he was muscular because he had an athletic build.skinny? what batman movie were you watching? when he has his shirt off you could tell he had a muscalr and strong build,thats why keaton never took his shirt off because he was insecure about people seeing how out of shape he was. logic has left the building for you to call this movie spiderman because thats like him having 8 arms and you still calling him spiderman,no difference. 🙄 logic has sure left your building as well. the only thing you said that holds any locic is yeah I agree with you that the batmobile from the first two batman films was better than the one in BATMAN FOREVER but thats just a minor detail about that movie I can over look unlike the major mistakes made in the fisrt two batflicks.

Originally posted by Stormeister
I forgive you 😎

stormeister meet my ignore list.I am done addressing you because that is extremely chilidish of you to quote something I did not say,the act of a child.

*Yawn.* Personally, I prefer Spider-Man with organic webbing. No more, "OH MY GOD, MY WEB CARTRIDGE IS EMPTY! WHAT EVER WILL I DO?! Of course, it's unbelievably simple--I'll reload it and save myself!"

Anyway, giving Spider-Man organic webbing allowed for the producers to introduce the spider-sense and probably saved a bunch of time explaining the web-shooters' development.

Swords_point (no, I'm not going to even try to figure out the button combination for the "simolean" sign), your grammar is atrocious. And how do you think REAL spiders spin webs? IT COMES OUT THEIR SPINNERETS...like a rope, in fact.