Spider-Man Movie Will Use Mechanical Web-Shooters
Joe Snodgrass
Five Key Changes In Spider-Man's Costume
The first image of Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man was released today,
and the online world is buzzing about what it could mean for the
upcoming reboot of the blockbuster film franchise.
While there are certainly a lot of questions to be asked about Peter
Parker's bloodied and bruised condition in the photo, the image also
reveals some interesting changes made to Spider-Man's iconic costume.
The lean and lanky Garfield casts a very different shadow as Spidey
than the franchise's former star, Tobey Maguire, and given what we can
tell from the photo, the familiar red-and-blue costume seems to have
undergone a reboot of sorts, too.
After staring intently at the photo without blinking for the last few
hours, I've come up with five notable changes in Spider-Man's costume
gleaned from the new image.
Spider-Man costume
1. The WEB-SHOOTERS
See those metal discs on Peter Parker's wrists? If they're mechanical
web-shooters, the new franchise could be planning a major reboot of
the character's history, as longtime fans know that Peter Parker's web-
shooting ability originally stemmed from a pair of mechanical bracelet-
like contraptions that he wore under his gloves. In the comics
universe, the "webs" he shot were composed of a chemical he invented,
and not a product of the radioactive spider-bite that gave him his
other powers. Recent storylines in Spidey's comics universe have gone
back and forth on the "organic vs. mechanical webbing" debate, with
the prior movie franchise going full organic for this plot point.
Could the new films be veering back to mechanical web-shooters, or are
the discs just a new element that facilitates Spidey's organic web-
shooting abilities?
Spider-Man costume
2. THE SYMBOL
Every iteration of Spider-Man's costume in the comic book, television,
and movie worlds have always added their own unique tweak to the
spider symbol on Peter Parker's chest. Sometimes it's been a wide,
shoulder-to-shoulder look, other times it's been reduced to a small
badge centered on the character's chest. In some cases, the symbol has
stretched vertically from Peter's shoulders to his waist — which
appears to be the direction they're going with this new costume.
Spider-Man costume
3. THE GLOVES
Given his web-shooting requirements, Spider-Man's gloves have always
been an important part of the costume. In this new iteration of the
iconic red-and-blues, we not only get some silver, possibly web-
shootery discs, but we also get a gauntlet that wraps around Spidey's
upper forearm. I'm not sure what to think about the spiral style of
the new gloves, but it definitely puts a new spin (sorry, I couldn't
help it) on the old favorite.
Spider-Man costume
4. THE PROFILE
I mentioned earlier that the new spider symbol on the costume
accentuates the leaner, lankier actor underneath it, but that isn't
the only element of the costume that seems designed to reinvent our
impression of the ol' web-head. The new costume seems to give
significantly more space to the slimming blue sections of the rib area
and pants, and offers a narrower red vertical on the chest than we've
seen on most of Spidey's movie costumes — or many of his animated
incarnations, for that matter.
The new costume also seems to have eliminated the horizontal, red
"belt" portion of the uniform, which only adds to the aforementioned
slimming effect. This version of Peter Parker is bringing the skinny
back, it seems.
Spider-Man costume
5. THE MATERIAL
While past iterations of Spider-Man's costume seemed to opt for a more
spandex look (with occasional ribbing on the webs), this new costume
seems to be composed of a more mesh-like material. The webs no longer
seemed to be glued on after the fact, and instead seem to be a part of
the same material that makes up the rest of the costume. It's a small
change, but a noticeable one. Here's hoping we get some explanation of
where he got the costume this time around!
And there you have it, folks — five changes I noticed in Andrew
Garfield's new Spider-Man costume. I'm sure there are some I missed,
so go ahead and chime in below with your own observations!
Ubiquitous
Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
web shooters!
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
nick
web shooters vs. mechanical web shooters. It's even better than slow
zombies vs. running zombies.
grinningdemon
wrote:
Coming up with the organic ones in the first place was stupid...and
gross...but I suppose I should be grateful they didn't shoot out of
his ass like a real spider.
Invid Fan
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
Well, it saved the audience from asking why Parker just doesn't sell
the formula for his webbing to 3M for a billion dollars :)
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
grinningdemon
wrote:
>In article <1c93j6lda1tl252io...@4ax.com>, grinningdemon
><grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 06:39:03 -0600, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
>> >web shooters!
>>
>> Coming up with the organic ones in the first place was stupid...and
>> gross...but I suppose I should be grateful they didn't shoot out of
>> his ass like a real spider.
>
>Well, it saved the audience from asking why Parker just doesn't sell
>the formula for his webbing to 3M for a billion dollars :)
That's simple...it's a well known fact that Peter must be a
perpetually broke loser...because apparently that's the everyman.
M.O.R
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:58:02 -0500, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ><grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 06:39:03 -0600, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
> >> >web shooters!
>
> >> Coming up with the organic ones in the first place was stupid...and
> >> gross...but I suppose I should be grateful they didn't shoot out of
> >> his ass like a real spider.
>
> >Well, it saved the audience from asking why Parker just doesn't sell
> >the formula for his webbing to 3M for a billion dollars :)
>
> That's simple...it's a well known fact that Peter must be a
>
> - Show quoted text -
He explored that avenue once in comics, and the reason made sense.
The webbing only lasts for an hour, and no company would pay for a
glue that only lasted an hour, hence why he was unable to sell it. He
was trying to make money to pay for Aunt May's bills but no glue
company would take it up.
grinningdemon
There have also been stories where he made webbing that lasted longer.
Anim8rFSK
web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
This is the best news about this movie so far.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
William George Ferguson
<sean.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
The reason did not make sense in the real world, anymore than a major
company being unable to make money on a glue that makes a weak bond and
doesn't dry and set. I can think of numerous potential applciations, and
I'm far from being an expert in either manufacturing or marketing. Off the
top of my head, it would be perfect for medical treatments where you want
the seal to be temporary.
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
Lilith
And Ben Reily created impact webbing. You'd think that Peter could
too.
--
Lilith
Anim8rFSK
But an HOUR? I don't think you want medical closures opening in an hour.
Lilith
wrote:
If you wanted it to stay closed while you stitched it up? Keep
someone from bleeding out while you got them to a proper medical
facility?
Hold girders in place while you welded them to the structure.
If Peter could create webbing that only stuck for an hour then he
should be able to modify the formula for more extended periods.
--
Lilith
grinningdemon
wrote:
That was the application I was thinking of...holding construction
materials in place while they are secured...it has certainly been
weight tested over the years by holding tons of collapsed buildings
together and catching material falling to the street.
>If Peter could create webbing that only stuck for an hour then he
>should be able to modify the formula for more extended periods.
He has done so at various times in the past.
Jim G.
nick sent the following on 1/15/2011 7:13 AM:
As a purist, I'll be happy to see the mechanical shooters.
--
Jim G.
Waukesha, WI
Anim8rFSK
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
What he said.
Michael O'Connor
> >> Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
> >> web shooters!
>
> > It's back again! One of the all-time great Internet debates--organic
> > web shooters vs. mechanical web shooters. It's even better than slow
> > zombies vs. running zombies.
>
> As a purist, I'll be happy to see the mechanical shooters.
>
The problem I always had with the mechanical web shooters is that
patenting such an item would likely make Peter Parker an overnight
billionaire. The applications of web shooters to police to detain a
criminal, or firefighters or rescue personnel to be able to scale a
building to save somebody would be enormous, and there would also be
all types of military applications that could be applied to his webs.
There would also be numerous medical and manufacturing processes that
could come out of his web material.
I'm generally a purist, but in the Spiderman movies I thought the
organic web shooters was an improvement over the comic books.
Lilith
<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
>> >> web shooters!
>>
>> > It's back again! � One of the all-time great Internet debates--organic
>> > web shooters vs. mechanical web shooters. �It's even better than slow
>> > zombies vs. running zombies.
>>
>> As a purist, I'll be happy to see the mechanical shooters.
>>
>
>The problem I always had with the mechanical web shooters is that
>patenting such an item would likely make Peter Parker an overnight
>billionaire. The applications of web shooters to police to detain a
>criminal, or firefighters or rescue personnel to be able to scale a
>building to save somebody would be enormous, and there would also be
>all types of military applications that could be applied to his webs.
>There would also be numerous medical and manufacturing processes that
>could come out of his web material.
The only problem I'd have with that is that the invention could be
used by common criminals too to ensnare victims. As an adhesive,
fine. As a spray adhesive, not so fine.
--
Lilith
Michael O'Connor
Of course, if the cops had it, the bad guys would have it also. The
only problem is that the cities would have to hire people just to
clean up all the webbing left behind on buildings by people using them
to swing here and there.
Trafconknight
a newer web-shooter that can shoot different types of webs. Short
lasting for swinging on, (hit a switch) one that lasts for so many
hours, (hit another switch) one that lasts for days/weeks.
I work in the sign manufacturing business and there are all kinds of
decal adhesives available from low tac (apply once, pull off and throw
away) to removable (apply but can be removed within a year), then
there are degrees of long term adhesives that last 3-5, others 5-7,
some 10-12 years.
Its funny that all his webbing is adhesive but none of it sticks to
his hands. Hah! Oh well.
(Still love the original mechanical shooters.)
Matt
Bill Steele
<51de0b52-2e8d-46e4...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"Michael O'Connor" <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
It's just a given that comic book gadgets don't get released to the
public. The police would like to have Green Hornet's gas gun (or the
original Sandman's). FF costume fabric that stretches? Miraclo pills?
Adamantium?
If these guys sold their inventions they could afford to hire a whole
army of people to go out and fight crime, but where's the fun in that?
But I'll vote for mechanical web-shooters too. They introduce more
problems, like running out of fluid at a critical moment. (And where
does the raw material for organic web come from? Peter should be
emaciated at the end of a typical day of swinging.)
Jim G.
Michael O'Connor sent the following on 1/16/2011 8:53 PM:
>
>>>> Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
>>>> web shooters!
>>
>>> It's back again! One of the all-time great Internet debates--organic
>>> web shooters vs. mechanical web shooters. It's even better than slow
>>> zombies vs. running zombies.
>>
>> As a purist, I'll be happy to see the mechanical shooters.
>>
> The problem I always had with the mechanical web shooters is that
> patenting such an item would likely make Peter Parker an overnight
> billionaire. The applications of web shooters to police to detain a
> criminal, or firefighters or rescue personnel to be able to scale a
> building to save somebody would be enormous, and there would also be
> all types of military applications that could be applied to his webs.
But the bad guys would have it in no time, as well, negating the
benefits for both the police *and* Spidey himself. I always thought
that it was wise of him to keep it to himself.
> There would also be numerous medical and manufacturing processes that
> could come out of his web material.
But where do you draw the line where other benefits are concerned? Was
Bruce Wayne wrong for not using his money and inventions to benefit
medicine? Should Aquaman submit to testing that might benefit Navy SEALs?
> I'm generally a purist, but in the Spiderman movies I thought the
> organic web shooters was an improvement over the comic books.
I saw organic shooters as yet another way to identify the changes that
he underwent, depending on how noticeable the shooters on on his wrists
or palms or whatnot. He can hide his strength and his ability to cling
to a wall, but gaping holes in his wrists are gonna require some
'splaining at some point. :)
Steven L.
news:d756bea1-bff4-43a7...@m35g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> > >> Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
> > >> web shooters!
> >
> > > It's back again! One of the all-time great Internet debates--organic
> > > web shooters vs. mechanical web shooters. It's even better than slow
> > > zombies vs. running zombies.
> >
> > As a purist, I'll be happy to see the mechanical shooters.
> >
>
> The problem I always had with the mechanical web shooters is that
> patenting such an item would likely make Peter Parker an overnight
> billionaire.
It also strains credibility to think that Peter Parker invented this
amazing gadget quickly on the spur of the moment like that.
The spider bite gave him all those other insect powers--why shouldn't it
give him that power that we most associate with spiders, the ability to
spin webs? Other than that, Parker's powers are reminiscent of any
other climbing insect. Why not call Parker "Insect Man" or "Ant Man"?
The answer is that those creatures don't spin webs.
> I'm generally a purist, but in the Spiderman movies I thought the
> organic web shooters was an improvement over the comic books.
I did too. Being able to create spider webs out of his own body is just
the power that we normally think of spiders having.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
news:1c93j6lda1tl252io...@4ax.com:
> Coming up with the organic ones in the first place was stupid...and
> gross...but I suppose I should be grateful they didn't shoot out of
> his ass like a real spider.
I always wondered why Peter Parker didn't have fangs with venom like a
real spider.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:ih2f28$i0b$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
To me, organic web spinning is the ONLY reason to call Peter Parker
"Spider Man." He was bitten by a spider, but other than web spinning,
the powers he got--strength and wall climbing--are common to many
insects. He could just as well call himself "Beetle Man" or "Ant Man"
without the organic web spinning.
And I wish people would stop calling organic web spinning "gross."
Gross is in the eye of the beholder species.
To a spider, human women must be gross--because human women carry their
larvae inside their bodies while they're hatching. And on top of that,
once the human larvae have hatched, they suck a liquid secretion out of
the women. I'm sure that arthropods would find that gross.
-- Steven L.
-- Steven L.
Howard Brazee
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>To me, organic web spinning is the ONLY reason to call Peter Parker
>"Spider Man." He was bitten by a spider, but other than web spinning,
>the powers he got--strength and wall climbing--are common to many
>insects. He could just as well call himself "Beetle Man" or "Ant Man"
>without the organic web spinning.
Their strength is a function of them being small. They aren't
absolutely strong. Spiders are quite weak and vulnerable in absolute
terms.
Squirrels can hold stuff bigger than themselves too - does that mean
an elephant with squirrel strength will be able to do the same thing?
Of course "spider sense" is not related to spiders or insects or
anything.
Spiders aren't particularly fast moving compared to insects either.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Steven L.
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:1n9bj61cl94tk36br...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 02:29:42 +0000, "Steven L."
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >To me, organic web spinning is the ONLY reason to call Peter Parker
> >"Spider Man." He was bitten by a spider, but other than web spinning,
> >the powers he got--strength and wall climbing--are common to many
> >insects. He could just as well call himself "Beetle Man" or "Ant Man"
> >without the organic web spinning.
>
> Their strength is a function of them being small. They aren't
> absolutely strong.
There's no such definition of "absolutely strong" in the biological
sense.
An ant can lift 20 times its own weight and carry it a great distance.
Other insects can't do that.
But you're right, a spider needs its web to do the trapping of prey for
it. Then it can use its poisonous fangs on the trapped prey.
Comic books aren't known for scientific accuracy. That Peter Parker
gets his strength and speed from a radioactive spider is no more or less
plausible than Superman getting his strength and speed from a yellow
sun.
The Batman story has it right: If you want strength and speed, do
workouts in a gym every day.
Guy Gaz
>
> Five Key Changes In Spider-Man's Costume
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4ocwe73
Mechanical web-shooters: ok; the costume and the spider symbol look ugly.
Why do they have to make those movies?
It's about bucks, I know.
But I don't like it!
GG
--
“Ich habe viel mit Mario Basler gemeinsam.
Wir sind beide Fußballer, wir trinken beide gerne mal einen,
ich allerdings erst nach der Arbeit.” - F.M.
Howard Brazee
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Their strength is a function of them being small. They aren't
>> absolutely strong.
>
>There's no such definition of "absolutely strong" in the biological
>sense.
I'm using the word "absolute" as an antonym of "relative". As in
elephants are stronger than ants.
>An ant can lift 20 times its own weight and carry it a great distance.
>Other insects can't do that.
Even though elephants can't do that.
Jim G.
Steven L. sent the following on 1/17/2011 8:29 PM:
Except for the fact that he got his powers from a spider.
> He was bitten by a spider,
Exactly.
> but other than web spinning,
> the powers he got--strength and wall climbing--are common to many
> insects.
And he was bitten by a spider.
> He could just as well call himself "Beetle Man" or "Ant Man"
> without the organic web spinning.
Except that he wasn't bitten by a beetle or an ant.
> And I wish people would stop calling organic web spinning "gross."
> Gross is in the eye of the beholder species.
But to another human, seeing Peter's webholes (or whatever we're gonna
call them) is gonna be pretty gross to those *humans.*
> To a spider, human women must be gross--because human women carry their
> larvae inside their bodies while they're hatching. And on top of that,
> once the human larvae have hatched, they suck a liquid secretion out of
> the women. I'm sure that arthropods would find that gross.
Agreed. Gross is relative.
Ubiquitous
> web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>> Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
>> web shooters!
>
>This is the best news about this movie so far.
Don't make me break out the Troll-O-Meter ™, dude!
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Anim8rFSK
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> ANIM...@cox.net wrote:
> > web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>
> >> Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
> >> web shooters!
> >
> >This is the best news about this movie so far.
>
> Don't make me break out the Troll-O-Meter ™, dude!
LOL, I'm totally serious.
Bill Steele
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <FMGdnSqxvYkVjarQ...@giganews.com>,
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> > ANIM...@cox.net wrote:
> > > web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
> >
> > >> Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
> > >> web shooters!
> > >
> > >This is the best news about this movie so far.
> >
> > Don't make me break out the Troll-O-Meter ™, dude!
>
> LOL, I'm totally serious.
I think I'm with you. What particularly annoyed me was that Peter had
to press two fingers to his palm to make the organic web-shooting work.
FSogol
That's why Parker always avoided strong handshakes.
--
FSogol
Anim8rFSK
Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
Yeah, what was up with that? He just looked like he was doing a bizarre
Dr. Strange imitation or something.
grinningdemon
wrote:
>In article <ws21-CA6D12.1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-68858...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <FMGdnSqxvYkVjarQ...@giganews.com>,
>> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > ANIM...@cox.net wrote:
>> > > > web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >> Ugh! I cannot believe they're retrograding to those stupid mechanical
>> > > >> web shooters!
>> > > >
>> > > >This is the best news about this movie so far.
>> > >
>> > > Don't make me break out the Troll-O-Meter ™, dude!
>> >
>> > LOL, I'm totally serious.
>>
>> I think I'm with you. What particularly annoyed me was that Peter had
>> to press two fingers to his palm to make the organic web-shooting work.
>
>Yeah, what was up with that? He just looked like he was doing a bizarre
>Dr. Strange imitation or something.
As a graduate of the University of Texas all I have to say is you guys
all suck.
Lilith
Are talking, "Hook 'em, Horns!!!" ?
--
Lilith (also a graduate of UT)
grinningdemon
wrote:
Damn straight...there was even a nod to it in the first Spidey movie
when he was playing around and trying to figure out how to make the
webs shoot out of his wrists.
M.O.R
> "grinningdemon" <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
Spidey 2099 did.
M.O.R
> "Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does that mean movie Spider-man would also have kids in the same way?
Sounds very similar to how Edward Cullen and Bella have a kid in the
last Twilight book.
~consul
-------- Original Message --------
> You would think that the Spidey writers would come up with Pete making
> a newer web-shooter that can shoot different types of webs. Short
> lasting for swinging on, (hit a switch) one that lasts for so many
> hours, (hit another switch) one that lasts for days/weeks.
I coulda sworn that when he came up with his varieties of webbing, he also geared his shooters to choose which wrist cartidge to pull form.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Steven L.
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:ih563t$rjf$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
A lot less gross than those Trills on Star Trek: Deep Space 9.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trill_%28Star_Trek%29
or
http://tinyurl.com/3m2j8b
-- Steven L.
Jim G.
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> sent the following on Fri, 18 Feb
2011 17:17:32 +0000:
What's gotten into you? :)
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> It's back again! One of the all-time great Internet debates--organic
> web shooters vs. mechanical web shooters. It's even better than slow
> zombies vs. running zombies.
Thanks for the heads-up.
*thread plonk*
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"Anything too stupid to be said is sung." -- Voltaire