You know your Spider-man.

This is a bump, but it's a bump with a purpose, so ignore it!

The web shooters as a separate invention have been a useful plot device in the comics since he invented them. He does run out of web fluid in the comic, if he isn't careful about managing his resources.

He ran out a couple times in the newer (relatively speaking) animated series, too.

This is off the subject, but it was the previews, there is gonna be a "Incredible Hulk" movie and im not sure if I want to see it but I probaly will end up seeing it, I do want to see "Men in black 2" also and a few others I am not gonna bother to type write now :)

Stealth2k

I saw it. It was really good except a little unrealistic.

It's not about being a comic purist. The famed four colors could be changed and I wouldn't care.

Webshooters are a part of the Spider-Man character. The genius is him. Gwen Stacy should be there, but at least it's a story element instead of a change in the character they are trying to build the movie franchise on. Organic webshooters change brains into brawn for the duration of Spider-Man. Gwen Stacy died a long time ago. (That said, I do think it hurts the old story. I would have rather gone with a Doc Oc fight if they were not going to bother with Gwen Stacy's death.)

Guns and chemical solids are relatively easy to create in the real world. Guns that shoot a chemical solid strong enough to hold the amount of stuff Spidey does are very reasonable in a comic.

PS: Yes, when Q-ball from Sliders got turned into some orphan from a parallel universe at war instead of a physics and computer science guy like me, I was not happy.

PSS: Here's a post from Slashdot that shows a view like mine:


Re:Staying true to original? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Corvus9 on Friday May 03, @12:55PM (#3457981) (User #300802 Info)

I'm sure many will disagree, but I don't mind when movie directors change small things about a character like Spiderman if it adds to the story

I'm one of those people who disagree. Not because they're changing the comic book, but because it totally changes the character.

Spider-man was written during the 60s; when teenagers interested in technology were even greater social outcasts than they are now; technology was associated with the Vietnam war, ROTC, and the military-industrial complex. The "cool kids" were all dropping acid and communing with nature.

Peter Parker was the first anti-establishment teenage super hero. Superman and the Fantastic Four were as straight as could be. Batman was an adult vigilante. But Spider-man was a groovy nerd; many early issues had him inventing chemical and electronic gadgets to solve crimes.

The movie spider-man is none of these; he's now a teenage heartthrob. Since all his powers are biological, he doesn't need to have any technical knowledge at all. Just get into one-ness with your inner spider, and Nature will rescue you. See, the 60s acid-heads were right all along! That is why I hate the biolgical web-shooters.

As for all the posters who will say "but how can a teenager invent what 3M can't"; because he's a technical genius, that's why! This is one of the most important themes from the comic book; that intelligence can be used to make things that help humanity instead of things like napalm.

It looks like the Green Goblin still has his hoverjet and gas bombs, gee I wonder why 3M isn't trying to get its hands on those. Let me guess why... because only villians use technology now.

Corporate Dog wrote:

Lesbian Assassin wrote:

I'm not being contentious about the Matrix's origins...
I've never suggested the Matrix is based on anything.
I'm merely saying that the claim that it is not in any
way "artsy". I mean, how would it be?

My definition of "artsy" is looking beyond a thing's face value for deeper, more significant meaning, whether or not its relevant to the discussion.

Taken merely on the surface, the Matrix isn't based on any one comic, and doesn't have typical four-color heroes in spandex, with weird powers and origins. By this definition, it's not a super-hero comic.

Yes, if you look at it long and deep enough, you can argue that the directors framed each camera shot as if it were a panel in a comic book. You can argue that it shares common elements A,B, and C, with comic books X,Y, and Z. You can argue any of a variety of points from Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics". So if I were looking for a deeper, "artsier" conversation on the topic, I'd say that the Matrix IS a comic-book movie.

Yes, but I've heard a lot of talk about the Matrix vs. comic books, and the only people I've heard say the Matrix is a comic book movie were all saying it was based, lock stock and barrel, off a particular comic book, with only names and minor details changed. Right or wrong, that's not artsy.

P.S. Scott McCloud is on my list. When the revolution comes, his tiny, poorly drawn self will be the first against the lower right corner of the wall.

there is a spider girl(will be at least in a way) in spiderman 2091(think thats the date) comics spider man has a doughter that has he spider powers and is 2 times as hot as MJ.

I never read that particular story, but it was probably earlier than 2091... Marvel had a short-lived 2099 universe in which Peter Parker was long gone, and a genetic researcher who studied 20th century superheroes accidentally gave himself spider powers while trying to create a "Spiderman"-style corporate super soldier. Of course, Marvel is not known for keeping various future timelines in continuity with each other, so it could've been 2091.

2099 was a pretty decent line, while it lasted... at least the Spiderman and Doom books were. Punisher 2099 was essentially Punisher in the year 2099, and the only "original" 2099 hero, Ravage, was also essentially Punisher in the year 2099, until they realized they had two Punisher characters and rotated Ravage's powers on a monthly basis until they found the lamest possible combination.

You might recognize this as the same strategy that DC Comics tried with Guy Gardner, while attempting to answer the question, "How can we improve his personality without making him any more likeable as a character?"

More related to the topic at hand: Spiderman 2099 had web spinners in his forearm, too. He didn't have a Spidersense, but he did have various enhanced visual abilities.

Lesbian Assassin wrote:

we all know we're not going to get spider powers. But we can still invent webshooters!

If, by the time that I'm 35, nobody has invented a web fluid that's strong enough to support the kind of thing Spiderman does, and some sort of rocket booster to solve the pendulum problem, then I'm going to get myself cryogenically frozen and tell them to wake me up when they do.

=V

<small>That was a huge sentence</small>