[Update: E! Online's Ted Casablanca reports that all talk on Spider-Man 4, as well as 5, is "jumping the gun" according to his sources. He adds that Tobey Maguire has not signed on to return calling the earlier claims "premature." Although it appears Maguire will probably return. - Jamie.]
Despite the fact that it made $900 million, I’ve yet to meet a single person who actually liked Spider-Man 3. Hell, the audience I saw it with went full-on MST3K resulting in huge laughter during the midnight screening.
But since its release, there have been countless rumors regarding the future of the Spider-Man franchise. “Is Tobey Maguire going to stop playing Webhead?” and “What will Sam Raimi’s involvement be… if any?” were among the many questions asked by fanboys across the internet.
Now it looks like plans are under-way to get Webhead’s fourth cinematic outing to the silver screen ASAP.
| |
According to Nikki Finke over at Deadline Hollywood Daily, Sony has hammered out new deals for director Sam Raimi and star Tobey Maguire to return for Spider-Man 4 among other things.
Even though most people would prefer her non-participation, Sony supposedly “would never recast” Kirsten Dunst as Spidey’s main-squeeze Mary Jane Watson. Although Finke was quick to point out no deal is in place for her yet – this despite the fact that her character will return.
“Once you find out who the villain is, you’ll know who’s playing it” says their source(s) regarding the identity of the next Spider villain. Um, okay. I would assume then they’re referring to Dylan Baker’s Dr. Conners. That’s the Lizard for all of you non-comic book readers out there!
And what about those rumors at the start of the summer of Spider-Man 4 and 5 being filmed concurrently? Apparently, Sony is considering it. While those God-awful Pirates of the Caribbean and Matrix sequels are not the best example of this, it did work for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Honestly, I find it hard to believe Sony is willing to fork all that money to Raimi and Maguire considering the reception of 3. I’m sorry, but this franchise needs new blood behind the camera. On the other hand, Jamie Vanderbilt is writing the script – the same guy who penned the most excellent Zodiac, which starred Robert Downey Jr.
Not to mention, Tobey’s getting on up there in years. He’ll be 36 years-old when its released in May 2011. You think he can still effectively play a character whose in his early-20s by then?
And what’s with the sudden “sacred cow” of keeping Kirsten Dunst around when damn-near nobody wants her (or her character) to come back?
I’m pretty iffy about this news, folks. Personally, I’d take it with a grain of salt until we hear something official from Sony.
Spider-Man 4 is currently aiming for a May 2011 release.
Source: Deadline Hollywood Daily
Loading ...
115 Comments
“I think that’s one reason The Incredible Hulk didn’t do better this summer – because people didn’t like the previous one, so it affected the attendence of this film, regardless of the fact that it was (a heck of a whole lot) better.”
Fixed Vic
I didn’t think Spidey 3 was awful, but it WAS the worst of the 3 by far. Venom definitely felt shoehorned into the film and I think it would have been better if Venom was left to the VERY end of the movie as a cliffhanger for Spidey 4. Can you imagine the anticipation for S-4 KNOWING that Venom would be the main villain throughout the whole film, especially if all we caught was a quick 2 second glimpse of him at the end of the movie??
What I found REALLY annoying about S-3 was emo-Parker. But then I have found the whole MJ storyline pretty dull throughout the films anyway.
IF there is a Spidey 4 I will definitely go see it, but I pray that it is better than S-3.
I enjoyed S3 despite pacing issues. I think everything has a tendency to say “street dancing” = horrible movie (thats the main complaint I hear) Most of the complaints I hear don’t even sound good. But who am I to say whose right and wrong in their opinions?
Personally i found Dunst to be a dunce in the first 2 movies, but a least they did something for the third film. Personally I don’t like MJ as a character and prefer felicia hardy or Gwen more. as for the Lizard, hell yes! Bring him in. Thats my 2nd fav with the Shocker at 1st.
Here’s hoping it’s better.
The reason SM3 was bad was because they tried to please everyone which ended up not pleasing anyone. When I heard venom was going to be in it I thought “sweet we get sandman in the third and venom in the forth” obviously i was wrong. Sony needs to make it a series instead of three stand alone movies, which in essence they were due to the constant dying of villains. If they rebboted took away organic webbing, put in gwen stacy instead of mj, and put in a villain that could haunt him all the time each movie. That way you could have three villains in a movie without wasting valuble story time with origin time and in the end have them either kick spidermans webby backside or narrowly escape.
Without a reboot just subtly start recasting until nobody realizes that you have a brand new cast.
The Incredible Hulk is a fabulous movie that lost ground this year because of the lack of hype on it’s release,then everyone was reading things into what was going on behind the scenes…like actor vs director stories…
But with all the superhero movies coming out at one time this summer…one of them had to take a hit…so Hulk was picked out!Fickle ain’t it but who cares…I loved it!!!
A choice needs to be made — either replace the creative minds that gave us the first trilogy or keep them.
I think an ‘in between’ approach to the next films spells certain disaster — not to mention it ruins continuity. If the new films are a fresh approach, why tarnish that with some of the old baggage?
My opinion:
Spider-Man 1: O.K.
Spider-Man 2: Awesome
Spider-Man 3: Disgraceful
I speak as a die-hard Spider-Man fan, movie buff and film student. I can say that these movies actually meant something to me. I believe that the potential that these movies had to be amazing milestones compared to the quality that they ended up having is a major dissapointment.
Because of that, I’m down for a complete reboot.
It’s time for Spider-Man to grow up — which he does in the comics — the “Gee-wilikers Mary Jane you kissed me-stage” needs to end. You have super powers and you bang a model.
No web-shooters? Please, it was a horribly unrealistic idea to give Spidey a power that never existed in the comics (before hand). The Web-shooter creation could of easily been tied into his origin story, while he was trying to make money. I don’t know why it wasn’t but that is one thing that shoud adhere to the material. Please give his web-shooters back.
Lets take a poll, would you prefer (a) good ol’ fashioned Web-Shooters or (b) ‘organic’ wrist holes that shoot webs? I can list so many reasons why the Web-Shooter are better but lets move on.
Mary Jane — a poor casting decision. Make up for it, hollywood is full of beautiful redhead actresses with screen talent. Why her in the first place? Why not focus more on Gwen Stacy, why not introduce Felica Hardy or even a fling with Betty Brant? Mary Jane was not Spidey’s only love interest and definitely not the first like the films denote. Personally, I’d like to see the Peter loves Mary Jane but Spider-Man likes Felicia dynamic.
I think there is a great choice for Mary Jane which I have never heard anyone mention for some reason: Milla Jovich, model turned actress, natural redhead. Mary Jane, model/actress/natural redhead. And obviously, Jovich has a knack for the comic-book-type-action- films (Resident Evil, Ultraviolet). And she’s a lot more attractive then Kirsten Dunst.
Venom — ruined. Redo it, right and using the new Venom film along with Spidey 4 and 5 to re-create the Symbiote story sounds like a great idea to me.
I read something about Todd McFarlene (my favorite comic book personality) saying that Venom can’t be done right with a PG-13? Gimme a break, look at Heath Ledger’s Joker — that was creepy and Venom can be too. I understand his point though, Venom is a monster and the Spidey 3 incarnation sucks. Oh, don’t even mention Topher Grace.
I think that for the next 3 or 4 Spider-Man films they should adapt the Lizard story and Maximum Carnage to the silver screen. I also understand if they opted to steer clear of symbiotes because it’s already been done, poorly but done none the less.
I know fans are itching for Carnage though, the Lizard and Carnage are what we want to see but how can you do Carnage right if you don’t reinvent Venom? I don’t think you can…
Venom’s origin is intertwined with Spidey’s symbiote and Carnage’s invaribly with Venom.
Let me stop ‘ranting’ because I don’t see an end in sight.
Sony / Marvel:
P-L-E-A-S-E do justice to the wall-crawler. He is among the greatest superheros of all time, let’s make his films among the greatest of all time. IT IS POSSIBLE!!!!
greenknight333,
It would have been great if the Gwen was introduced before Mary Jane in the films and the Green Goblin killed her like in the comics… too bad…
@ G.K
I agree Tobey does pull off the web-head. The only thing missing was the wise-ass mentality that he gets in the comics after the mask comes on. There was some in the films but not enough.
@ Vic
As far as The Incredible Hulk goes — definitely. The movie deserves to be mentioned right along with Iron Man and The Dark Knight but it slipped into moderate obscurity (by comparison).
Obviously, IM & TDK got what they deserved while TIH was a simpler film (as far as plot, characters etc.) but the quality of the production was on par with the other great comic book films that came out this year.
The fact that it was a ‘re-boot’ was not effectively advertised, I remember talking to a girl trying to decide what movie to see: Her exact words were: “Ew, I don’t want to see the Hulk, I hated the last one.” For all average, non-fanboy movie-goers I think that was the general mentality.
All this TIH talk demonstrates that franchises can’t be successfully ‘rebooted’ after one bad film and 5 years.
DON’T REBOOT SPIDERMAN! And recasting doesn’t equal reboot (e.g. Batman Forever). Get rid of Dunst, sure. Get rid of McGuire, eh, maybe. Get rid of Raimi? maybe, maybe not. Although I disliked S3, I still see it’s good qualities and wish Raimi had the chance to do it his way without Venom (assuming internet rumor is true).
“The fact that it was a ‘re-boot’ was not effectively advertised”
I can see the trailer now…
“In a world… where Ang Lee never made ‘The Hulk’… one man…” you get the idea.
“Hey Ang Lee… we thought your movie sucked! We’re giving someone else a go at it, a-ight?!” No need to be P.C. about it now is there?
And there will have to be a second villain. Lizard isn’t much of an antagonist alone. Someone posted about having Kraven enter, trying to hunt the Lizard which I like. Spidey trying to save/cure Conners while protecting his good name at the same time trying to stop Kraven from hunting him down… sounds like a good story.
@Michael & High Kalibur
See there’s where problems in satisfaction come in. You are looking for 100% accuracy in comic book source material instead of how well it’s done on screen. Organic webbing is imo a much better power instead of web shooters due to not being limited to cartridges and having some lame obstacle in the movies being “he’s run out of webbing, what can he do!?”
“Why MJ in the first place?”
Why not? Today, Mary Jane is considered an important part of the Spider-Man series and has been featured in most other media adaptations of the character. Fans had loved Mary Janes “feisty” personality over Gwens non-offensive attitude, and she is eventually the one Peter marries. Regardless of what you think, Mary Jane is the more popular choice. And Sm2 tried to fit in other possible relationships with peter (though the chick was more of a hill billy type girl) and Gwen Stacy in the 3rd (along with ol’ Betty) The chick who plays her sucks, yes.
@ PANDA
““Hey Ang Lee… we thought your movie sucked! We’re giving someone else a go at it, a-ight?!” No need to be P.C. about it now is there”
I had to tell people that it was a re-boot before seeing it and the general consensus is that it is a much better film. So like I said, if the Average Joe knew that, I’m sure the box office numbers would of been more substantial.
You don’t agree? Oh and I never said anything about offending Ang Lee — I admired the attempt to over-aesthetically tackle the hulk character but for whatever reason, it didn’t work.
I agree that it is too early to re-boot Spider-Man — I say just leave it alone. But if they are doing more, I would prefer a re-boot. Marvel has enough films comming out from now through 2011.
A second villian? I think the Lizard could be the main antagonist of one film — especially since Spidey wouldn’t know who it was at first.
“See there’s where problems in satisfaction come in. You are looking for 100% accuracy in comic book source material instead of how well it’s done on screen. Organic webbing is imo a much better power instead of web shooters due to not being limited to cartridges and having some lame obstacle in the movies being “he’s run out of webbing, what can he do!?””
Oh, I definitely don’t expect 100% comic book adaption. What works in the books doesn’t necessarily work on the screen and vice versa.
A good example of that is the costume.
Spider-Man is my favorite Superhero and I find that a science-whiz, gaining spider-like powers and instincts, creating a formula and a device to shoot ‘webbing’ like a spider more believable then the said individual gaining the ability to secrete actual spider webs from pores in his wrists. I mean, what happens if someone looks at his wrists? What if he gets a check-up? He now has a gland that produces spider webs. Wait… shouldn’t they be comming from his A$$?
I could argue that dynamic forever so it’s really just a matter of taste. I don’t see any reason why changing that part of Spider-Man for the film made it better. Do you?
““Why MJ in the first place?”
Why not? Today, Mary Jane is considered an important part of the Spider-Man series and has been featured in most other media adaptations of the character. Fans had loved Mary Janes “feisty” personality over Gwens non-offensive attitude, and she is eventually the one Peter marries. Regardless of what you think, Mary Jane is the more popular choice. And Sm2 tried to fit in other possible relationships with peter (though the chick was more of a hill billy type girl) and Gwen Stacy in the 3rd (along with ol’ Betty) The chick who plays her sucks, yes.”
Dude… I agree Mary Jane is arguably the most important romantic interest he has. I was saying why Dunst…
But Betty Brant actress sucks? Dude! She’s hot! And did a good job with her little supporting role! : )
High Kalibur -
I agree with you on TIH, 100%. My telling Ang Lee his movie sucked was not sarcasm. I think he wanted to make some sort of artsy ‘comic-come-to-life’ thing that turned into a mess. I can’t imagine he is a comic fan, but what do I know?
But I agree, people did not know it was a reboot and it suffered financially because of it. People needed the trailer, at Ang’s expense, to tell them THIS IS NOT A SEQUEL. WE KNOW THE FIRST ONE SUCKED SO WE REBOOTED IT. sadly that can’t be advertised in that manner.
@ Panda
…say word homie…
@ Panda
What did you think about that whole ‘Sandman killed Ben Parker’ crap and then, i guess, the message of ‘forgiveness’ @ the end of the film as Sandman blows off into the sunrise after Venom was seemingly ‘disintegrated’ by a pumpkin bomb that only scarred Harry’s face at point blank range. Personally, the entire climax pissed me off.
He killed your Uncle, He is the reason you became Spider-Man… GET HIM! It’s not like Spidey knew the back story about Penny or anything… at least apprehend the guy.
If you really dig deep into that plot point, doesn’t it take away from the first two films, i mean, the original burglar not being the one who killed Ben. Think deeper into that…? So even if Peter ’stopped that guy’ the Sandman still might have jacked his uncle for the car.
So the entire, integral Spidey message “with great power…” doesn’t even apply…
God… Spider-Man 3 really sucks…
Neofcon is right you cant do web shooters it makes no sense. It was a mistake made in the beginning to do them in the comics because if your gonna suspend reality by giving him super powers why stop at the web slinging.
Plus it being a device rather than a power is just going to make everyone want to make their own web shooters.
I would like to see a reboot of venom tied in with the venom movie but venoms not creepy he’s scary in a darker way than joker was he needs to kill in a violent manner that will be the challenge
“I think the Lizard could be the main antagonist of one film”
depends if they go for an intelligent Lizard or more animalistic. I prefer the latter, because it’s easier to look at him as kinda like the werewolf, where he wakes up not remembering what happened while he is the Lizard. Taking this route, another villain would be needed because there would be no villainous plot, just Spidey chasing the Lizard around NY. That would leave alot of room in the story for romance which no one here seems to be interested in. j/k
@ de ron assis
Can you explain, in your humble opinion, how developing web producing glands makes more sense then building web shooters?
Furthermore, how do you hide the glands and pores? Are you going to tell me that it makes more sense for them to just automatically appear when used and then completely dissapear when not in use? I say, it makes more sense to put them on when you need to use them and take them off when you don’t.
@ Panda
I get your point about the Lizard — he’s not evil.
why argue of webshooters vs. glands? I personally prefer the webshooters (the glands were later added to the comics version to my dismay), but I think the glands are easier to explain in a movie than web shooters.
@ Panda
I think shooters vs. glands is a worthwhile debate…
In the comics I thought they added the glands because of the films success? Right? And If I’m not mistaken, didn’t they revert back to shooters in ‘Amazing’? Haven’t been reading them… I don’t like where it’s going since One Last Day.
The shooters are a solidification of his science-genuis, and inherited spider-instincts. Glands… just made up… maybe because they didn’t want to put in the effort to make the web shooters believable?
That reminds me? They also could’ve made his Spide Sense a hell of a lot cooler!
Spider-Man 4 ?! “Spidersense tingling!”
Ok in situations spider man can just run of for a few minutes fixing on his web shooters?
“Spider-Man is my favorite Superhero and I find that a science-whiz, gaining spider-like powers and instincts, creating a formula and a device to shoot ‘webbing’ like a spider more believable then the said individual gaining the ability to secrete actual spider webs from pores in his wrists.”
Where you said believable you really meant that its believable that a human bit by a spider who gains powers of a selective spider who only gave him all the powers but the webbing?
in my opinion the pores can easily shrink as the same way our human pores do being as it’s a fictional comic book film where people can grow minute hairs giving him grip im sure having shrinking pores isn’t a stretch.
I think no shooters was laziness from a filmmaking stand point.
Obviously, Spider-Man is not possible man, that’s the beauty of cinema and the point in many ways.
I still haven’t heard why that change to the character was better for the movie…?
And really, depending on how well its done either option, shooters or glands, can be made ‘believable’ within the extent of the film.
“Ok in situations spider man can just run of for a few minutes fixing on his web shooters?”
Yeah! You’re bringing back memories! Spidey use to hide everything in a websack! Change of clothes, costume, shooters…
I think the hassle of not having them all the time adds a feeling of realism and creates a challenge when he doesn’t have them or needs to change cardtriges or runs out of fluid.
Oh, sorry and let’s not forget that making the fluid was really expensive for him and he couldn’t always afford it! Again a hint a realism…
it was better for me because the shooters would have slowed things down he would always have to carry a bag with these things within and in really tight situations he would be in trouble. every one has there own preferences but i think thats something they did right
money for web slinging? thats just gonna be a boring side fact that we are gonna have to take into consideration why would something like that be added unless they wanted to kill the film.
it would just add another weak point to him where by one day he has no money so you have no spider man.
and hinting at realism i think you got the wrong film, maybe you want the dark arachnid?
@ de ron assis
Preferences definitely, I think that with more effort the web-shooters could have worked out fine in the films and even added more depth to the character.
By ‘realism’ I’m saying that you take something virtually impossible and add real world problems to it. No, it’s still not realistic but for the duration of the film we accept the fantasy existing in a real world. Yes, in the back of our minds we know it’s fake but to enjoy the film, we let that go.
So i’m speaking of realism in the fanatsy sense, even though that might not make sense. : )
yeah it does make sense but i myself wouldn’t like to see it and after the last spider man why give them more to think about they couldn’t do it right this time even without trying to figure out something like that but how would you explain the shooters if given the chance? maybe ill change my opinion.
I think it would just need to be adapted to fit the story and have a purpose in the film. Their are probably a lot of ways to go depending on the film. One easy way I think would be to add it as one of the ways he was trying to make money (like in the comics). Struggling with money was a theme hinted at in the films, example: Aunt May’s mortgage, like I said, sometimes Peter can’t afford webbing. Those ideas work, imagine if I was PAID SIX FIGURES to have ideas like those guys were — I would gladly come up with a lot more.
“Webbing & Webshooters
What would be a Spider, without a web? The web-shooters and the webbing material were the first and perhaps the greatest product of Peter Parker’s scientific talents. As a young boy, he created this material with huge tensile strength, which was sticky on extrusion, but which rapidly set to bind a foe, or provide a cable on which to string from skyscraper to skyscraper across the Manhattan skyline.
The webbing is stored in refillable high-pressure cartridges, which Spidey keeps on his belt, tucked under his costume. The cartridges are under immense pressure. The release lever on his webshooters (one per wrist) require a double-tap to release the flow. The webbing dries on contact with the air, and dissolves in approximately one hour.
By varying the nature of the pressure, and by adjusting the nozzles on the spinnerets, different forms of webbing can be achieved.
In fact, you name it, Spidey can probably whip you one up out of webbing. Like a magician with a bag of stretchy ballons, he can trot out the standards with nary a twist of the wrist. Web-Lines, Web-Shields, Web-Trampolines, Web-Parachutes, Web-Bandages, Web-Plugs…
…Web-Gloves (shock-proof), Web-Domes (airproof), Web-Swings, and with a great deal of practice, even this handy-dandy Web-Hang-Glider. And how about a Web-Hammock for a nice relaxing snooze… and automatic wake-up call after 60 minutes!”
–http://spiderfan.org/characters/himself/equipment/index.html
“Although he is usually of limited financial means, Spider-Man develops personal equipment that plays an important role in his superhero career.
Spider-Man’s web-shooters were perhaps his most distinguishing trait, after his costume. Peter had reasoned that a spider (even a human one) needed a web. Since the radioactive spider-bite did not initially grant him the power to spin webs, he had instead found a way to produce them artificially. The wrist-mounted devices fire an adhesive “webbing” (see below) through a threaded adjustable nozzle. The trigger rests high in the palm and requires a double tap from the middle two fingers to activate, eliminating the chance of accidental discharge when forming a fist. [39] To accomplish this his hands are often in a distinctive hand position when he fires them (resembling the sign for “I love you” in American Sign Language, reverting someone giving you the “Evil Eye” in Italian superstition or the horned hand heavy-metal gesture) In order to fire the webbing, Spider-Man’s fingers must hit the sensor precisely, which enables him to ball his fingers into a fist.
Spider-Man must steadily replenish his webbing supply, reloading his web-shooters with small cartridges of web fluid, which is stored under high pressure. In early stories, he carries his extra supplies in a utility belt worn under his costume [40]. Later on, he equips the web-shooters with a bracelet-like carousel that automatically rotates a new cartridge into position as he empties them. When in use, a steel nipple in the carousel pierces the seal of the cartridge, and allows the fluid to travel through an air-tight channel toward the nozzle. Pressing down on the palm-trigger of the web-shooter causes the valve in the nozzle to open wider, expelling the fluid out. Releasing the trigger causes the valves to close, cutting off the web-line or fluid. If Spider-Man creates any variation to his normal web formula that’s too strong for the pinch valves to sever, he might end up being tangled up or tied to the object he attached his web to. This has happened on more than one occasion. His web-shooters require constant maintenance and on more than one occasion suffer jams or malfunctions.
The triggers on each web-shooter require tremendous pressure to fire them (in most cases, Spider-Man’s enhanced strength), and the average human cannot activate the trigger without the use of a hammer or similar object, [41] although in many cases, normal human strength is sufficient enough to activate them for the purposes of plot development. [42]
Occasionally, the web-shooters are modified to expel other liquids.”
–Wikipedia
Wow, I say there is a bountiful sum of source material to justify the incorporation of this character trait into the film version or… sadly, at least there was.
: )
maybe but i still cant see it helping the story i know its like that in some of the comics but i just think it would have been to coincidental that he was making web like things then was bitten by a spider. i think its too much story based on a small thing they definitely need more time for the story line after the last one
On the debate over glands or Tech, I’ll go with glands.
I balked a little when I saw the first film, but it made sense, this kid was now like a mutant from X-Men…
In the second film they (the glands) allmost shut down when he went all “Mr not my prob”. That was great!!!,,,
forget the running to the hardware store angle for glue and whatever,,, the Mutant aspect works best for the movies!
Go Spider Man 4 !
@ High Kilabur
No I meant Dunst sucks.
Don’t even touch the chick who plays brant!
Also yeah the whole Sandman gig really destroyed the point of the Bens death. They expect us to take his involvement with the other burglars death to be some for of guilt.
Or probably the “responsibility” part where he attempts to kill sandman. Or w/e.
God thats a major flaw with SM3.
Have to agree with the Sandman?uncle Ben twist…that was a mess!But surley the team who made S3 must know by now what sucked about that movie and will do everything to rectify this in any future movies…I think fans would understand if Raimi came out and said something publicly to reasure fans that he’s still 100% into making more movies…other wise we need a whole new team to come in and take it in a new direction,just like comics need new writers and artists…the character is the star!
I would also like to see Spidey doing more amazing moves through the air…that’s one of the things we love about the comics…the way he swings…each movie should be pushing the bar with scenes that astound the audience!!!
Glands vs. Tech
I’m even on both now that i read all the comments, the glands make it feel more like a mutant movie, which spider-man is, but the tech gives him flaws and intelegence at the same time. I may have been the only one to notice this but Peter in the movie series just seems like a gifted college student not a genius.
I must apologize or starting this “Glands vs Tech” mess.
your right he just seems a bit smart not very exceptional at all and it would be good to see the intelligent side of peter.
Lol, NeoFcon,,,
Good thread.
@ de ron assis
F.Y.I. he doesn’t make them before he is bitten, he makes them after. He is able to ‘instinctively’ combine the chemical compound after the bite. I like that, Spider-Man having the instinct of a spider, I think it’s awesome!
to each and there own i guess but i just thought somewhere in that long explanation it said he was making this web like material as a young boy maybe not kinda went on a bit so maybe i just maid that up in my head lol
I allways felt they didn’t dwell on the web material because the story was allways bigger,,,
Using some type of technology would ultimately look like a web-gun that would just be another gimmick.
Mutation is Parkers blessing and curse.
(IMO)
exactly
I like the glands idea that the movie took for where his webs come from.I hate the idea that Parker is so brilliant he can invent such stuff,that’s a Batman thing…Batman,no superhero powers…how will he defeat his enemy…just invent a thing that’ll save the day!!!Yeh,very good!!!
No Spidey has to live in the real world..sort of…
Yeah Brave heart has a point. Though I don’t recall moments where batman just whipped something up to beat his enemies in a rematch, nor spiderman.
In a lot of ways, Peter Parker was made as a character who can relate to teens, and I doubt anyone out there is a scientific genius capable of creating adhesive chemicals.
@Neofcon
I take it you’ve never been to a high school science fair.
Vic
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!