Why are the Spider-Man movies only made for slow people or children?
Nymphetamine
Mans powers, which are at least theoretically possible. Duh.
What is moronic are the "explanations" for his enemies "powers", in
fact its worse; the actual powers are never explained, because they
are never taken seriously, but then they become the threat (?).
In the first movie, it had so many blunders I will just focus on one
aspect: The Goblins hoverboard. This bit of technologically is such a
gigantic leap that it is laughably implausible. In order to
succesfully suspend disbelief for the near-impossible in WELL-MADE
movies, you need to make an effort to explain advancements with the
awe they merit. The hoverboard was a simple side-effect (?) and
therefore a lazy cheat, since it would have revolutionized the world
more than Spidey or the Goblins former-goals put together, but this is
purposely ignored.
Spider Man II is much, much more idiotic. This Ocatvius character not
only invents and manufacturers these robotic arms, or an unprecendted
way to control them, by fusing nanotechnology, biotechnology, and
articifial intelligence. Again, this is theoretically possible. But
heres where the stupidity drops on the audiences head like birdshit -
these inventions, which seperately would revolutionize their
respective technological fields and together revolutionize the entire
planet, are IGNORED. "Oh these things are nothing, just part of the
safety process."
LMAO
To ignore them in the movie is to insult the audience, and to them
ignore them in the audence is to suspend your entire brain from
functioning.
Though nothing could match all that for sheer lazy storytelling for a
mindless audience, putting the external "chip" on the back of his neck
"so they dont control me" - or when the 200 lb DocCop stopping a
speeding 2 ton cab in its tracks, if you didnt laugh AT that
uninintentional bullshit of hilarity, you must be very very slow, or
very very young. Its now clear that YOUR MONEY is what those
responsible for this mess of a Spider Man franchise are all about.
Corse
"Nymphetamine" <nymphe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1e71a87c.04070...@posting.google.com...
LMAO
--------------------
What you are saying is true of all superhero stories. They are intended
for children and people with the mental capacity of children. So what else
is new?
Corse
Kai Hirdt
[A lot of right remarks about superhero stories being unbelievable, spit
out with an unexplained amount of ire and insulting every grownup who
enjoyed Spidey 2]
So, your point is, superhero stories have logical plotholes? Indeed they
have, and it is a convention to ignore them. I wouldn't have liked
Spidey 2 to be a three-hour-movie, one of which was devoted to technical
exposition and far-fetched explanations. It would have been a lot more
believable, yes, and extremely dull to watch.
The bits shown have to fit together, which they do in Spidey 2 with one
exception that has been discussed in another threat. Everything else is
a bonus. Good if it's there; not a problem if it's not.
It's a COMIC movie, after all - it doesn't have to be all believable to
be all enjoyable.
So just relax, get your popcorn, put your feet up and enjoy. And if you
want reality displayed, don't watch superheroes, anyway.
Bye
Kai
teepee
"Kai Hirdt" <GK...@gmx.de> wrote
> The bits shown have to fit together, which they do in Spidey 2 with one
> exception that has been discussed in another threat. Everything else is
> a bonus. Good if it's there; not a problem if it's not.
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
I suspended disbelief for all except the idea that he was strong enough to
stop a speeding train and junp hundreds of feet but couldn't even stun Dr
Octopus with several punches in the face. Is that what you're referring to?
~consul
> "Kai Hirdt" <GK...@gmx.de> wrote
>>The bits shown have to fit together, which they do in Spidey 2 with one
>>exception that has been discussed in another threat. Everything else is
>>a bonus. Good if it's there; not a problem if it's not.
Does this mean you've seen the film? :)
>
>
> s
>
> p
>
> o
>
> i
>
> l
>
> e
>
> r
>
>
> s
>
> p
>
> o
>
> i
>
> l
>
> e
>
> r
>
>
> I suspended disbelief for all except the idea that he was strong enough to
> stop a speeding train and junp hundreds of feet but couldn't even stun Dr
> Octopus with several punches in the face. Is that what you're referring to?
I still like my idea that the tentacles dulled his pain receptors and finagles with his
system to resist them better.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
Josephthomann
It's a fucking movie, you mook. Can you not name a thousand examples of movies
outside of the superhero genre that you can't complain about similar things
with? Jesus, why don't you get a life?
The Black Guardian
I thought about posting more, but what would be the point.
You're a complete and utter idiot. Go away.
--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Peter
Nymphetamine <nymphe...@aol.com> wrote:
> To ignore them in the movie is to insult the audience, and to them
> ignore them in the audence is to suspend your entire brain from
> functioning.
No to ignore them means you are a normal human being with a life and
not some anal fanboy who wanks off to Elektra drawings... seems you
lucked out.
T
I liked the movie(s) but if Spidey landed those punches w/ full force
he would have taken the good Dr's head off.
Better had the film makers used the Arms more defensively to ward off
such haymakers.
The only saving grace might be Spiderman might have not been at full
force due to his fake out head case symptoms, but this is a weasley
excuse.
It's funny how the OP needs to vent his spleen and insult folks. I men
wtf? Why does he care, and who made him anything more than someone w/
an opinion.
TBerk
Nymphetamine
> Nymphetamine wrote a bunch of nonsense...
>
Go away
Nymphetamine
>
> It's a fucking movie, you mook.
Is there anyone who isn't an angry moron around here?
Nymphetamine
>
> So, your point is, superhero stories have logical plotholes? Indeed they
> have, and it is a convention to ignore them.
Look genius. The idea of superhero stories is an alternate reality
exists, same as OUR reality but with certain individuals who have
"super-powers". Batman, Spawn, Superman, X-Men, Hulk, bla bla bla.
Thats all you have accept for an entertaining story.
In what "reality" would "nanotech AI fused robotic arms" or "personal
unlimited powered hoverboard" be an AFTERTHOUGHT?
LMAO
Compared to all the other "super-hero" stories, and movies, Spider Man
is the cheapest, laziest mess of a film that was thrown together to be
accepted by the dumbest of the dumb crowds.
God Magnus
news:1e71a87c.04070...@posting.google.com:
> In what "reality" would "nanotech AI fused robotic arms" or "personal
> unlimited powered hoverboard" be an AFTERTHOUGHT?
In "alternate" one, troll.
> LMAO
>
> Compared to all the other "super-hero" stories, and movies, Spider Man
> is the cheapest, laziest mess of a film that was thrown together to be
> accepted by the dumbest of the dumb crowds.
So then you had no problem with Superman II and his "projectile plastic
emblem" that he used to trap one of the Phantom Zone villains.
--
The Kitchen Sink
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/m/gmagnus/
Party Like it's 2099 Homepage
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/m/gmagnus/misc/comics.htm
badthingus
I understand what you're saying, becuase I had my own problems with
the film as well, but what you're commenting on goes back to the
origin of the character itself. Doc Ock was always a nuclear
physicist who strangely had a mastery of robotics to build those arms.
The flaw is not in the films, but in the character itself. Same for
the Green Goblin.
And there is an explanation. Just because a scientist uses a device
doesn't mean he built it. All scientists use computers and need
computers, but I doubt your average bio-chemist could build one. He
could have easily have contracted the arms out, just giving a basic
design to someone with the necessary knowledge (it would have been a
neat touch have him credit the acutal construction of the arms to a
Marvel U character). And the Green Goblin's hovercraft was obviously
the result of a team of scientists working for Oscorp, not just
Osborne himself.
And I find it amusing that the needlessly rude criticisms of your post
which suggest you need a life come from people whose own lives are
free enough that they can not only read your post, but respond to it.
Pot, meet kettle.
God Magnus
news:9cd53a3a.04070...@posting.google.com:
> And I find it amusing that the needlessly rude criticisms of your post
...reveal him to be a troll.
Kai Hirdt
No, that worked for me. Maybe the tentacles just take over or something
like that. They are attached to his neural system and have their own
personality. Maybe Octavius even *was* stunned, so the machine could
take over completely.
No, I was referring to Doc Ock throwing a cab at Pete and MJ just to
start a conversation about Spidey whereabouts It's a good entry after
all, but he nearly killed his informant. Not well planned. It just
didn't make sense, and all explanations tried still seem pretty
makeshift to me.
Bye
Kai
Kai Hirdt
> Kai Hirdt <GK...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<2l5prcF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>So, your point is, superhero stories have logical plotholes? Indeed they
>>have, and it is a convention to ignore them.
>
>
> Look genius.
Thanks for appreciating that.
The idea of superhero stories is an alternate reality
> exists, same as OUR reality but with certain individuals who have
> "super-powers". Batman, Spawn, Superman, X-Men, Hulk, bla bla bla.
>
> Thats all you have accept for an entertaining story.
>
> In what "reality" would "nanotech AI fused robotic arms" or "personal
> unlimited powered hoverboard" be an AFTERTHOUGHT?
>
> LMAO
>
> Compared to all the other "super-hero" stories, and movies, Spider Man
> is the cheapest, laziest mess of a film that was thrown together to be
> accepted by the dumbest of the dumb crowds.
Well - the Bat-Anti-Shark-Spray comes to mind...
Is there a special reason why you feel so strongly about the movie that
you go around insulting people?
Bye
Kai
God Magnus
> No, I was referring to Doc Ock throwing a cab at Pete and MJ just to
> start a conversation about Spidey whereabouts It's a good entry after
> all, but he nearly killed his informant. Not well planned. It just
> didn't make sense, and all explanations tried still seem pretty
> makeshift to me.
Maybe his aim was off and the car didn't go as high as he wanted it to.
Jack Bohn
>Look genius. The idea of superhero stories is an alternate reality
>exists, same as OUR reality but with certain individuals who have
>"super-powers". Batman, Spawn, Superman, X-Men, Hulk, bla bla bla.
>In what "reality" would "nanotech AI fused robotic arms" or "personal
>unlimited powered hoverboard" be an AFTERTHOUGHT?
Oddly, in one where they decided that "super adhesive that
dissolves in an hour" as an AFTERTHOUGHT would not be believable.
Seriously, you seem selective in your indignation.
--
-Jack
Peter Bruells
> No, I was referring to Doc Ock throwing a cab at Pete and MJ just to
> start a conversation about Spidey whereabouts It's a good entry after
> all, but he nearly killed his informant. Not well planned. It just
> didn't make sense, and all explanations tried still seem pretty
> makeshift to me.
Well, Doc Ock was clearly not sane at that time. By the way, KILLING
Peter Parker would've drawn out Spider-Man as well. (Well, from an
outsider's point of view.)
Peter Bruells
Have to correct myself... Osborn didn't imply that Spider-Man would
care much about Peter. Though Doc Ock could've thought about the fact
that Spider-Man was around when Peter Parker was in Danger when his
miniature son was about to blow.
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
nymphe...@aol.com (Nymphetamine) wrote:
> What is moronic are the "explanations" for his enemies "powers", in
> fact its worse; the actual powers are never explained, because they
> are never taken seriously, but then they become the threat (?).
It's even worse than that. These people, I've found out, are actually
'actors' with 'scripts' someone had ALREADY WRITTEN before the movie came
out. They sometimes do things more than once because the schmucks can't
get it right immediately.
And novels? Don't talk to me about novels, they're just ink arranged on a
page.
Of course some people rise above these things, but fortunately I'm not
that stupid....
Glenn Simpson
"Because most people are either slow, or children, or both, and they
want to make a movie most people will enjoy."
Theodore Jay Miller
> And there is an explanation. Just because a scientist uses a device
> doesn't mean he built it. All scientists use computers and need
> computers, but I doubt your average bio-chemist could build one. He
> could have easily have contracted the arms out, just giving a basic
Yes, since Harry was funding Octavius' work, part of that
funding could have involved having scientists at Oscorp
or elsewhere construct the arms; Octavius doesn't need to
have invented and built them himself.
That's a specific difference from Peter Parker and the
webbing. A teenage science whiz inventing the webbing
in his bedroom could be hard to believe, whereas it's
a lot easier to believe that a multimillion dollar
corporation would be able to locate scientists who've
made advances in artificial intelligence and metallurgy
and so on that aren't quite ready for mass production.
~consul
>>
>>
>>
>> s
>>
>> p
>>
>> o
>>
>> i
>>
>> l
>>
>> e
>>
>> r
>>
>>
>> s
>>
>> p
>>
>> o
>>
>> i
>>
>> l
>>
>> e
>>
>> r
>>
>>
> start a conversation about Spidey whereabouts It's a good entry after
> all, but he nearly killed his informant. Not well planned. It just
> didn't make sense, and all explanations tried still seem pretty
> makeshift to me.
Did that first car from when he left the hospital ever land anywhere? Maybe it was still
flying ...
I've got a better one: The AI program that is controlling Otto is designed to 'complete
the fusion reactor'. That's why it keeps pushing Otto to steal and build it, programming.
But deep inside, Otto knows that he shouldn't be doing it, so he subconsciously works
against his arms. So instead of getting info from Parker, he tosses the car 'just a little
to low' so he can't get the whereabouts of Spidey. :)
Josephthomann
>
>Is there anyone who isn't an angry moron around here?
Well, you don't seem to be angry, but you qualify as a moron just the same. You
should leave movie critiquing to those with fully functioning brains. You just
don't have what it takes to think.
Nymphetamine
> nymphe...@aol.com (Nymphetamine) wrote in
> news:1e71a87c.04070...@posting.google.com:
>
> > In what "reality" would "nanotech AI fused robotic arms" or "personal
> > unlimited powered hoverboard" be an AFTERTHOUGHT?
>
> In "alternate" one
you mean the "alternate" one where Peter Parker can't pay his own rent?
lmao, you moron.
Josephthomann
>> > unlimited powered hoverboard" be an AFTERTHOUGHT?
>>
>> In "alternate" one
>
>you mean the "alternate" one where Peter Parker can't pay his own rent?
>
>lmao, you moron.
Tsk tsk tsk...
Don' look now, but you seem to be adding yourself to that list of "angry
morons", troll.
Nymphetamine
>
> > In what "reality" would "nanotech AI fused robotic arms" or "personal
> > unlimited powered hoverboard" be an AFTERTHOUGHT?
> >
> > LMAO
> >
> > Compared to all the other "super-hero" stories, and movies, Spider Man
> > is the cheapest, laziest mess of a film that was thrown together to be
> > accepted by the dumbest of the dumb crowds.
>
> Well - the Bat-Anti-Shark-Spray comes to mind...
>
> Is there a special reason why you feel so strongly about the movie that
> you go around insulting people?
im going to try and stop laughing so i can type this.
So doc-ock holds a press conference for his "unlimited fusion" thing,
and as an aside he says "OH YEAH. by the way, I have these lil
tentacles which have advanced metallurgy, nanotechnology, articial
intelligence, biotechnology over a century each but ignore that, on to
my next EXPERIMENT"
lolol
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 09/07/04 21:48 GMT Daylight Time
I notice you didn't answer the question.
Let's make it simple.
1) You're right.
2) No-one else cares. Why do you?
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Egret: An apology sent by computer.
-Andy Hamilton, I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue
God Magnus
> God Magnus <maggodnus@earth.x> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9520E8136AC1...@216.77.188.18>...
>> nymphe...@aol.com (Nymphetamine) wrote in
>> news:1e71a87c.04070...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > In what "reality" would "nanotech AI fused robotic arms" or
>> > "personal unlimited powered hoverboard" be an AFTERTHOUGHT?
>>
>> In "alternate" one
>
> you mean the "alternate" one where Peter Parker can't pay his own
> rent?
Yes.
> lmao, you moron.
Why, troll?
wise-one
message across that is much more than a superhero film.
Try remembering the movie with the characters representing these
roles:
Spiderman - USA
MJ - freedom
Dr. Oct - terrorism
two black boys - future soliders
The unmasking was to show a "kid" taking on a big job. The USA is
young compared to other countries in the world.
more below...
nymphe...@aol.com (Nymphetamine) wrote in message:
[snip...]
> What is moronic are the "explanations" for his enemies "powers", in
> fact its worse; the actual powers are never explained, because they
> are never taken seriously, but then they become the threat (?).
>
all of the arms represent the different branches and cells of
terrorism. The Dr. and Peter had met briefly so they knew of each
other. Spiderman couldn't kill this enemy and showed him how wrong it
was, so he could destroy himself. Hopefully this is what will happen
with terrorism.
This is a very well made movie. It is not just entertainment.
NedLeedsjr
>Try remembering the movie with the characters representing these
>roles:
>
>Spiderman - USA
>MJ - freedom
>Dr. Oct - terrorism
>two black boys - future soliders
While everyone could interprete the movie to fit their own beliefs, ideals,
etc, the above analogy is stretching it quite a bit from its intent, IMO.
Peter
<nedle...@aol.com> wrote:
> While everyone could interprete the movie to fit their own beliefs, ideals,
> etc, the above analogy is stretching it quite a bit from its intent, IMO.
Reminds me of those morons who tried to get the name 'The Two Towers'
changed because it sounded like the WTC.
BlackJet76
objects changed the world or whatever. Nobody cares. Movies are an escape from
the world. Movies are fantasy. Now go masterbate to a math book
Nathan P. Mahney
Jack Bohn <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:fopse0tmnldqn6gh6...@4ax.com...
Something just occurred to me while I was reading your post. In the regular
MU, it's always been a little unbelievable that Pete hasn't been able to
make some money from that nifty adhesive of his. But in the movie, it's
biological. How is he going to sell it? How can it be mass produced?
Would it compromise his secret identity if he tried to market it? The more
I think about it, the more I think that organic web-shooters was by far the
best way to go.
- Nathan P. Mahney -
The Black Guardian
>>> Look genius. The idea of superhero stories is an alternate reality
>>> exists, same as OUR reality but with certain individuals who have
>>> "super-powers". Batman, Spawn, Superman, X-Men, Hulk, bla bla bla.
>>>
>>> In what "reality" would "nanotech AI fused robotic arms" or "personal
>>> unlimited powered hoverboard" be an AFTERTHOUGHT?
>>
>> Oddly, in one where they decided that "super adhesive that
>> dissolves in an hour" as an AFTERTHOUGHT would not be believable.
>> Seriously, you seem selective in your indignation.
>
> Something just occurred to me while I was reading your post. In the regular
> MU, it's always been a little unbelievable that Pete hasn't been able to
> make some money from that nifty adhesive of his. But in the movie, it's
> biological. How is he going to sell it? How can it be mass produced?
> Would it compromise his secret identity if he tried to market it? The more
> I think about it, the more I think that organic web-shooters was by far the
> best way to go.
Well, even with artificial web-shooters, he couldn't sell or mass produce it.
It would still compromise his secret ID.
--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Nathan P. Mahney
The Black Guardian <blak...@aol.coma.org> wrote in message
news:20040710040339...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Good point. So why have people been bitching about it for the last forty
years?
The Black Guardian
Don't know. Don't know anyone, personally, who has.
wise-one
So I guess you didn't pick up on the "Die Another Day" message? North
Korea! North Korea! A ruler who wants to be an American, and control
the world remind you of anyone? Halle = metaphor for Condi, with a
British spy (England) to help in time of trouble.
There are plenty of messages in movies. Not everyone will see them.
Sorry - back to marvel business.
Do you really think Halle
Nymphetamine
> The more
> I think about it, the more I think that organic web-shooters was by far the
> best way to go.
Certainly nothing blatantly unreasonable or insulting to an audience
about the character, its all within the realm of possible (which is a
short summary of why any "hero" story is successful)
Unlike alien-like leaps in numerous technologies that is a) invented
by one guy, at one time, for one machine, and then b) ignored.
Unrealistic? Try impossible, and is a short summary of why THIS story
is a failure.
Why the movie succeeds can explained by this fact: movie critics are
mostly middle-aged geeks who relate to spidey oh-so-much, 4-stars
everywhere, and the gullible public only sees what it expects to see.
Snap out of your trance, that Doc-Ock press conference was on of the
most ridiculous, laughable scenes in cinema history.
"Oh and these are sentient tentacles attached to my body that I am
controlling and powering with my brain. Moving right along,..."
lmao
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>From: nymphe...@aol.com (Nymphetamine)
>Date: 10/07/04 16:35 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1e71a87c.04071...@posting.google.com>
>
>"Nathan P. Mahney" <nma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<40ef...@news.comindico.com.au>...
>> The more
>> I think about it, the more I think that organic web-shooters was by far the
>> best way to go.
>
>Certainly nothing blatantly unreasonable or insulting to an audience
>about the character, its all within the realm of possible (which is a
>short summary of why any "hero" story is successful)
You mean you think getting "spider-powers" from being bitten by a
genetically-engineered spider is "within the realm of possible"?
Now *I'm* LMAO. Of course it isn't. The idea of a human having the
"proportional strength of a spider" is totally impossible. So what? Realism was
not one of the film's aims.
kapop
> Suspension of disbelief is required for the explanation for Spider
> Mans powers, which are at least theoretically possible. Duh.
>
> What is moronic are the "explanations" for his enemies "powers", in
> fact its worse; the actual powers are never explained, because they
> are never taken seriously, but then they become the threat (?).
>
...Major snipping of anti-Spidey flick blog...
One thing comes to mind here. If you can't (and you obviously can't)
enjoy a totally make-believe story in a totally make-believe world, you
could never have liked Spider-Man in the first place. The original silver
age Stan Lee stories were full of improbabilities. But they were still
FUN. So your inability to enjoy the character and his world, both as
originally created and as they currently "exist" begs one question: Why'd
you go see the movies to begin with?
Karl
Thomas Andrews
assume that the laws of physics are different in a comic book universe,
after all.
But there was one annoying gimmick to me - when Doc Ock interrupts Peter
and MJs kiss by throwing a car through the window, when Ock needs to
talk to Peter, not kill him. Just dumb. Looks cool in the previews,
but makes no sense at the moment in the context of the movie.
= thomas andrews
= tho...@best.com
The Nuclear Marine
news:20040710113939...@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>
>>From: nymphe...@aol.com (Nymphetamine)
>>Date: 10/07/04 16:35 GMT Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <1e71a87c.04071...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>"Nathan P. Mahney" <nma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:<40ef...@news.comindico.com.au>...
>>> The more
>>> I think about it, the more I think that organic web-shooters was by
>>> far the best way to go.
>>
>>Certainly nothing blatantly unreasonable or insulting to an audience
>>about the character, its all within the realm of possible (which is a
>>short summary of why any "hero" story is successful)
>
> You mean you think getting "spider-powers" from being bitten by a
> genetically-engineered spider is "within the realm of possible"?
>
> Now *I'm* LMAO. Of course it isn't. The idea of a human having the
> "proportional strength of a spider" is totally impossible. So what?
> Realism was not one of the film's aims.
>
The sad part is that every human has the proportional strength of a
spider. If you were the size of a spider, and everything was kept in
proportion, you could lift 50 times your own weight (square-cube law).
Comic books aren't known for their scientific accuracy, but at the
fantastic aspects of the human immagination in relation to females with
really big breasts in really tight shirts.
Nuke
Glenn Simpson
> >
> >From: nymphe...@aol.com (Nymphetamine)
> >Date: 10/07/04 16:35 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <1e71a87c.04071...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >"Nathan P. Mahney" <nma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:<40ef...@news.comindico.com.au>...
> >> The more
> >> I think about it, the more I think that organic web-shooters was by far the
> >> best way to go.
> >
> >Certainly nothing blatantly unreasonable or insulting to an audience
> >about the character, its all within the realm of possible (which is a
> >short summary of why any "hero" story is successful)
>
> You mean you think getting "spider-powers" from being bitten by a
> genetically-engineered spider is "within the realm of possible"?
>
> Now *I'm* LMAO. Of course it isn't. The idea of a human having the
> "proportional strength of a spider" is totally impossible. So what? Realism was
> not one of the film's aims.
I think there's a realm somewhere between "real" and "impossible" that
one could label "believeable". The rules of what is "believeable" are
somewhat hard to define, but I guess it generally involves taking that
which is somewhat misunderstood and speculating on results, within a
fictional environment.
That is, it's not "real" for Peter to get spider-powers from a
genetically-altered spider, but since "genetically-altered" is not
something everybody understands thoroughly, then having a speculated
result (spider-powers), it falls into the category of "believeable".
Within the fiction, I can believe a guy can get super-powers from
being rocketed here from an alien planet, he can train himself all his
life to kick people's butt, or radiation can have any number of
affects. Doesn't make it realistic, but doesn't prevent it from being
"believeable."
Nymphetamine
> My problem isn't with explanations of abilities, powers, etc. We just
> assume that the laws of physics are different in a comic book universe,
> after all.
huh? if the laws of physics are different, there would be no people,
no gravity, no nothing. You moron, everything is the same EXCEPT the
super-powers, I already explained this.
Spiderman is not only NY, but NY in the present. Therefore the
tentacle technology is called "cheating", especially when its not
RECOGNIZED AS IT WOULD BE.
Cheap lazy movie-making for a bunch of dimwits who accept anything
shoveled down their gullible maws.
Nymphetamine
>
> I think there's a realm somewhere between "real" and "impossible" that
> one could label "believeable". The rules of what is "believeable" are
> somewhat hard to define, but I guess it generally involves taking that
> which is somewhat misunderstood and speculating on results, within a
> fictional environment.
>
> That is, it's not "real" for Peter to get spider-powers from a
> genetically-altered spider, but since "genetically-altered" is not
> something everybody understands thoroughly, then having a speculated
> result (spider-powers), it falls into the category of "believeable".
>
> Within the fiction, I can believe a guy can get super-powers from
> being rocketed here from an alien planet, he can train himself all his
> life to kick people's butt, or radiation can have any number of
> affects. Doesn't make it realistic, but doesn't prevent it from being
> "believeable."
Exactly. Thats the entire premise about super-heros and comics, its
friggin fiction and you accept the superpower explanation.
Everything else, ie SOCIETY is the same, thats one of the "rules",
especially when you are making sure everyone knows WHERE WHEN and WHAT
society you are in.
And to foist this nonsense of ANY societys non-reaction to exponential
leaps in NUMEROUS technologies is, basically, why the both Spiderman
movies, and the entire franchise, is known as a joke. Thats the legacy
and thats what you get with lazy storytelling made for the slowest of
people, and the youngest of children.
Nathan P. Mahney
There's always the odd person around these groups who periodically wonders
why Pete hasn't made a fortune selling his web fluid. It probably got
brought up in the old letters pages, too, and that's probably why Stan dealt
with the issue early on. But it still gets raised from time to time.
Nathan P. Mahney
Nymphetamine <nymphe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1e71a87c.04071...@posting.google.com...
Well, laugh all you want. For some reason when I'm watching these movies my
mind thinks 'near-future' as opposed to 'present', so things like Ock's arms
don't fuss me at all. And sure, the arms are a wonderful breakthrough, but
in comparison with Ock's energy research, they really are inconsequential.
Peter
Nymphetamine <nymphe...@aol.com> wrote:
> huh? if the laws of physics are different, there would be no people,
> no gravity, no nothing. You moron, everything is the same EXCEPT the
> super-powers, I already explained this.
>
> Spiderman is not only NY, but NY in the present. Therefore the
> tentacle technology is called "cheating", especially when its not
> RECOGNIZED AS IT WOULD BE.
*blinks*
So a guy who swings around on webs projected from his wrists are ok,
but a man with a mechanical arms is not???
what a knob....
Jon Clark
To be fair Spidey's powers are pretty accidental. It's not like you could mass
produce his abilities, even if his exact origin was known by the general
public.
Doc Ock on the other hand BUILT the source of his powers. So someone else
taking Ock's notes, schematics, etc could make a dozen sets of arms just like
the ones he used. Pry cost prohibative for the average Joe, but based on the
damage those things did, can you not see the military wanting a brigade of
Ock-troops (pardon the pun). They are more mobile than tanks, can throw large
objects as projectiles, and they turn infantry to mush.
I'm not saying I couldn't ignore this, heck I can come up with my own internal
reason why the above didn't happen. But I think Nymphetamine has a perfect
right to point it out as something he can't get past and which the movie didn't
address.
Some people can accept that no one sees Superman in glasses when they look at
Clark Kent, some can't. Some people can accept that Frank Castle can walk into
a room full of professional gunman and be the ONLY one able to score a hit,
some can't. We all have those things in comics and movies that we simply can't
suspend our disbelief for. Sometimes they do seem silly compared to what we
can suspend it for, but I doubt anyone tries to come up with things to ruin a
movie or comic for themselves.
Kai Hirdt
> Peter mentions:
>
>
>>In article <1e71a87c.04071...@posting.google.com>,
>>Nymphetamine <nymphe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>huh? if the laws of physics are different, there would be no people,
>>>no gravity, no nothing. You moron, everything is the same EXCEPT the
>>>super-powers, I already explained this.
>>>
>>>Spiderman is not only NY, but NY in the present. Therefore the
>>>tentacle technology is called "cheating", especially when its not
>>>RECOGNIZED AS IT WOULD BE.
>>
>>*blinks*
>>
>>So a guy who swings around on webs projected from his wrists are ok,
>>but a man with a mechanical arms is not???
>>
>>
>>what a knob....
>
>
> To be fair Spidey's powers are pretty accidental. It's not like you could mass
> produce his abilities, even if his exact origin was known by the general
> public.
>
> Doc Ock on the other hand BUILT the source of his powers.
Noone's doubted that. In fact it has been pointed out that he was right.
Peter's also right, on the large scale both are pretty unbelievable. At
a closer look, Doc Ock is even more unbelievable than Spidey, but I
would expect neither of them to knock at my door and ask if they can use
my toilet.
If Nymphosomething cannot enjoy the movie because Doc Ock's origin isn't
entirely plausible, so be it. It would just be interesting why he's
bashing the movie while the comic has the same problem; it would be also
interesting why he cannot just say "I didn't like it" but has to insult
people who did.
Bye
Kai
Mathew Krull
> Thomas Andrews <tho...@best.com> wrote in message news:<r_NHc.27$yN1...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>...
>
>>My problem isn't with explanations of abilities, powers, etc. We just
>>assume that the laws of physics are different in a comic book universe,
>>after all.
>
>
> huh? if the laws of physics are different, there would be no people,
> no gravity, no nothing. You moron, everything is the same EXCEPT the
> super-powers, I already explained this.
>
The super powers alone show that the laws of nature are somewhat different.
> Spiderman is not only NY, but NY in the present. Therefore the
> tentacle technology is called "cheating", especially when its not
> RECOGNIZED AS IT WOULD BE.
>
And the technology that created a spider whose bite would give someone
the ability to defy the laws of physics currently exist? Or would this
also be a cheat? Genetis engineering on that level would mos certainly
revolutionize the world.
Glenn Simpson
> glenns...@yahoo.com (Glenn Simpson) wrote in message news:<f674a38c.0407...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I think there's a realm somewhere between "real" and "impossible" that
> > one could label "believeable". The rules of what is "believeable" are
> > somewhat hard to define, but I guess it generally involves taking that
> > which is somewhat misunderstood and speculating on results, within a
> > fictional environment.
> >
> > That is, it's not "real" for Peter to get spider-powers from a
> > genetically-altered spider, but since "genetically-altered" is not
> > something everybody understands thoroughly, then having a speculated
> > result (spider-powers), it falls into the category of "believeable".
> >
> > Within the fiction, I can believe a guy can get super-powers from
> > being rocketed here from an alien planet, he can train himself all his
> > life to kick people's butt, or radiation can have any number of
> > affects. Doesn't make it realistic, but doesn't prevent it from being
> > "believeable."
>
> Exactly. Thats the entire premise about super-heros and comics, its
> friggin fiction and you accept the superpower explanation.
>
> Everything else, ie SOCIETY is the same, thats one of the "rules",
> especially when you are making sure everyone knows WHERE WHEN and WHAT
> society you are in.
Actually, I'd disagree there. The society Spider-Man lives in is
different from ours as well. Mainly because he lives in a dramatic
fictional setting.
Peter lives in a world where guys running around in tights isn't
embarrassing. Where the police have accepted vigilantes. Where someone
who wishes to do evil things puts on a big flashy costume and does it
in daylight.
People in Peter's world have almost had their world destroyed several
times, but don't live in a constant state of panic. He lives in a
world where Captain America can beat Galactus (if it's Cap's comic).
Peter never has to take break from web-slinging to go take a crap. If
this were a discussion about DC, I'd point out how many super-heroes
seem to make ends meet, despite having no job, or at least keeping
hours that no employer would allow.
It's a different world, with a different sort of people. Sometimes
they hate mutants, other times they don't care. To paraphrase another
post I saw recently, Peter doesn't have an Aunt May because his
grandparents had two children - he has an Aunt May because he needed a
supporting character to perform certain tasks in his stories.
If you were going to magically change the world we live in to the
world of super-heroes, it's more than physics you'd have to change -
it's the mindset of society too.
Jack Bohn
>Something just occurred to me while I was reading your post. In the regular
>MU, it's always been a little unbelievable that Pete hasn't been able to
>make some money from that nifty adhesive of his. But in the movie, it's
>biological. How is he going to sell it? How can it be mass produced?
>Would it compromise his secret identity if he tried to market it? The more
>I think about it, the more I think that organic web-shooters was by far the
>best way to go.
The thesis I am developing is that there is no "best way to go."
Different people find different parts of any super-saga
unbelievable. (Actually, that may be the wrong word, with the
implication that the other parts are believable, when it's more a
factor of fudging or glossing over them. Perhaps I should go the
other way and say everyone finds some parts embarrassing.)
Normally, that's not a problem, we *want* to see a man swinging
from a thread between buildings (the genius was that we didn't
know we wanted to see it until they brought it up) and if the
story is enjoyable in providing more than *just* a man swinging
on a thread we agree to pay the price of swallowing some
far-fetched stuff. Once the superhero's origin becomes the
unquestioned background assumption, they introduce some
supervillain. He also needs a bit of improbability to have his
origin, but we can accept it for that story, we don't think about
the supervillain of the previous month, or the one following.
(There's a question: How many superhero origins also involved
another fantastical element? Spidey only faced a burglar, Iron
Man only the Red Army. I'm thinking of Thor, who got the power
just in time to fight off an alien invasion and the Fantastic
Four -although technically their origin was told in flashback and
they seemed to be a going concern by the time the Mole Man's
Monsters showed up in FF #1. (One could say for Monster Magazine
Marvel, alien invasions and giant beasts were the unquestioned
background assumptions that superheroes were added to.) Were
these the first? What -say- did the Silver Age Green Lantern's
origin entail? Even if it was an alien Abin Sur was fighting
that might be a special case, like the world of magic Dr. Strange
entered or the mutant-on-mutant action of the X-Men.)
(On a second parenthetical, this may explain the paucity of
successful new superheroes and especially new Superhero Universes
over the last 25 years. They have been aimed not at trusting,
accepting kids, but at teens and older who have a harder time
accepting the improbabilities upon improbabilities -although they
do grandfather in the Universes they read and accepted as
children.)
As I was saying... we each find something strange about superhero
comics. (I feel like launching into another parenthetical
pointing out that these stories were made just for one month's
entertainment by guys who were also doing half a dozen other
stories (but I will resist).) Normally, it's not too much of a
problem, if the story is good, we accept it for that sake and
move on. Occasionally, among fans someone will bring up the
question of how much more the supervillain could make using his
gimmick in legitimate business, or how Spidey's spiderpowers
can't be done in the same manner that an actual spider does them,
similar to the "Did you ever think about..." comedy routines
among the mundanes. The problem seems to come with a retelling,
revisiting, or adaptation of the origin where someone will change
an aspect of the origin he finds unbelievable (or embarrassing)
and yet miss that there is a giant *illogical* GAPING HOLE IN THE
IDEA THAT _fill in the blank_.
--
-Jack
Jack Bohn
>Actually, I'd disagree there. The society Spider-Man lives in is
>different from ours as well. Mainly because he lives in a dramatic
>fictional setting.
>
>To paraphrase another
>post I saw recently, Peter doesn't have an Aunt May because his
>grandparents had two children - he has an Aunt May because he needed a
>supporting character to perform certain tasks in his stories.
What was that line from MST3K? Something like:
"KMST- plot point radio. All plot points, all the time."
--
-Jack
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 11/07/04 03:14 GMT Daylight Time
Have you ever considered directing your aggression towards something that's
actually *important*?
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 11/07/04 03:14 GMT Daylight Time
>Thomas Andrews <tho...@best.com> wrote in message
>news:<r_NHc.27$yN1...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>...
>> My problem isn't with explanations of abilities, powers, etc. We just
>> assume that the laws of physics are different in a comic book universe,
>> after all.
>
>huh? if the laws of physics are different, there would be no people,
>no gravity, no nothing.
At the risk of stating the mind-numbingly obvious, that would depend on *how*
they're different. According to last week's New Scientist, there's currently
evidence that the fine-structure constant differed from its current value as
recently as two billion years ago, which probably means c was different too.
This doesn't seem to have affected the Earth much.
But that's an absurdly literalist interpratation of Thomas' comment anyway.
What I think he means is that the laws of physics in the comic book universe
are, for want of a better word, "looser", although not as loose as, say, Terry
Pratchett's Discworld. Hence Giant Man is unaffected by the square-cube law,
radiation has unpredictable but generally positive effects on human physiology,
magic works, and, yes, one-person jet-gliders and mind-controlled tentacles are
high-tech, but not that remarkable.
Having said that, you can believe Spider-Man is set in "the real world" if you
want. The evidence is against you, but you know that; it's what you're
complaining about...
God Magnus
> At the risk of stating the mind-numbingly obvious, that would depend
> on *how* they're different.
Logic? On a troll? Won't work.
--
The Kitchen Sink
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/m/gmagnus/
Future Marvel Month Homepage
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/m/gmagnus/misc/comics.htm
Jordan Lund
> "Oh these things are nothing, just part of the safety process."
Boy, wait until the 3rd or 4th movie when Dr. Connors tries to grow
back his missing arm by injecting himself with Lizard DNA...
(it aint pretty folks!)
- Jordan
Nymphetamine
>
> > Spiderman is not only NY, but NY in the present. Therefore the
> > tentacle technology is called "cheating", especially when its not
> > RECOGNIZED AS IT WOULD BE.
> >
> And the technology that created a spider whose bite would give someone
> the ability to defy the laws of physics currently exist? Or would this
> also be a cheat? Genetis engineering on that level would mos certainly
> revolutionize the world.
Spidermans powers were accidental, not "researched" prior to
discovery, and he never disclosed them to "the world". From what I
remember, the spider WAS being researched in regards to genetics.
Josephthomann
>> > tentacle technology is called "cheating", especially when its not
>> > RECOGNIZED AS IT WOULD BE.
>> >
>> And the technology that created a spider whose bite would give someone
>> the ability to defy the laws of physics currently exist? Or would this
>> also be a cheat? Genetis engineering on that level would mos certainly
>> revolutionize the world.
>
>Spidermans powers were accidental, not "researched" prior to
>discovery, and he never disclosed them to "the world". From what I
>remember, the spider WAS being researched in regards to genetics.
>
Are you still here, you bitter, angry little moron?
Mathew Krull
Spidey's powers may have been accidental, but the technology that
created 15 genetically engineered spiders was not. The genetid
engineering needed to make those spider is easily years away from where
we are currently. If you can suspend your belief to buy into that
cheat, why are the other cheats such a problem for you.
God Magnus
> where we are currently. If you can suspend your belief to buy into
> that cheat, why are the other cheats such a problem for you.
>
He's a troll, that's why.
Nymphetamine
> Nymphetamine wrote:
>
> >
> > Spidermans powers were accidental, not "researched" prior to
> > discovery, and he never disclosed them to "the world". From what I
> > remember, the spider WAS being researched in regards to genetics.
>
> Spidey's powers may have been accidental, but the technology that
> created 15 genetically engineered spiders was not. The genetid
> engineering needed to make those spider is easily years away from where
> we are currently. If you can suspend your belief to buy into that
> cheat, why are the other cheats such a problem for you.
"Future technology" is by definition bullcrap, so the successful
storyteller puts the effort in to convince the audience, because the
key to (successful) storytelling is believability. For some reason you
are missing the difference between your two comparisons: recognition.
Like with the spiders, they were INSIDE a lab, BEING researched. Doc
ocks unlimited fusion technology? Pure BS, but also INSIDE a lab,
BEING researched, recognized as advanced, which is effective enough
for the stories purposes. Get it? Those technologies WERE the subject,
which is required for suspension of disbelief for the thinking
audience.
Tentacles? Nanotechnology to fuse with them? Artifical Intelligence
that controls them? "Nothing to see here, just tools I found in a
cracker-jack box"
Lazy writing for a mindless mob.