Disney shills don't understand why some people prefer the top over the bottom

Disney shills don't understand why some people prefer the top over the bottom.

I'd top Tom Holland's bottom.

>comparing a youtube blender animation to a movie
For what purpose?

To be bait

>Raised webbing
>Basketball texture
>Static eyes

Homecoming has too much CGI filter, but everything else about the costume is better.

I personally never liked either the elevated webbing or the basketball textures on the Raimi/Amazing suits, respectively.

MCU's spidey suit was perfect texture, even if the minor tacticool elements. Granted, the CGI could have been better, but the animated eyes were worth it and the webbing actually looked like what pre-Raimi Spiderman suits would have.

Spider is too small

Raised webbing is cool

Shillcoming is underperforming

Digital filters are the bane of modern film making.

the new one is better except the logo is fucking terrible

Can I have top with bottom's eyes?

web pits :^)

web pits are fucking gay

So is there any particular reason he called himself Spider-Man? I know he got bit by a spider, but literally no one else in the world knows that. If he took the spider logo off his chest and came up with a different name for his web shooters, he could have called himself whatever he wanted.

>Raised webbing is cool
No. It clutters up the design.

found the man with no taste

No matter where you stand on this issue, we can all agree that amazing spider man 1 and 2 was the worst of the 3 filmss

Raised webbing legit just looks better in motion. Even when it wasn't actually CG, MCU Spider-Man's suit just has that rubbery CG look all the time and I hate it.

>he says while posting 60's cartoon Spider-Man that didn't have web pits.
Nobody uses web pits in the adaptations because they're fucking gay.

Homecoming's costume looks fake even on the few occasions it's real.

>we can all agree
No we can't because Homecoming was a clothes-hanger abortion. Holland can't deliver quips let alone act.

Why go for another theme when he got his powers from a spider, can stick to walls and created a material that looks and functions suspiciously like spider web?

No one knows Batman got scared by some bats one time either.

Static eyes are better you goddamn retard. That's how they canonically are, the only reason he expresses his eyes sometimes is because of toon force and only the reader notices. That's why in every emotional scene in the comic the eyes are static.
>basket ball texture
>raised webbing
I don't see how any of these are bad.

Reported

Stupid fag doesn't understand that people can like both

If i had a Homecomming image that read Shut The Fuck Up I would use it.

the bottom might be cgi, yes, but the top still looks shitty. metal webbing and glass eyes is ugly as hell.

>MCU fags will defend them shitting all over If This Be My Destiny
>MCU fags will defend Aunt May finding out Peter is Spider-Man over a joke.
>MCU fags will defend killing off the Unmockable Shocker
>MCU fags will defend Peter acting so wildly out of character.
>MCU fags will defend tacticool
>MCU fags will defend all the shitty tech upgrades
>MCU fags will defend Peter sucking Tony's cock
>MCU fags will defend Peter having a fucking AI.

I don't understand how one group of people can be so deluded. This was such a shitty adaptation.

>muh web pits
they look like shit. As expected from fucking gay web pits

So static eyes are better simply because they're canon, which is debatable (often they're not and comics are a static medium, when he's animated the eyes are always expressive) but raised webbing and basketball texture gets a pass?

Because it's dramatic and marketable for a wrestler who wants to make the big shots.

tom holland is a spider child, we need a spider man

you don't have to understand, and we're not going to stop having different taste to you

>but raised webbing and basketball texture gets a pass?

Because there's no way to tell if that's how they are in the comics. It would be drawn the same way either way.

Toby was a Spider-Manchild.

They're unnecessary and ugly additions.

BONESAW IS READY

damn dude, you really went through the time to type all that? not a pasta or bait?

>MUH DIFFERENT OPINIONS, HOW DARE PEOPLE LIKE THINGS I DON'T LIKE, GRRRRRRRR

is right. Nobody gives a fuck about Tom Holland's Spider-Man. In Homecoming, Peter Parker is a prop who delivers shitty quips and that's enough for them. Nobody is watching this movie looking for Spider-Man. They just want RDJ and MCU references they can point out to friends.

How? They make the suit pop and look better without adding random black lines.

Just like web pits.

His eyes move in the comics.

Stupid casual.

One of the billion images I have.

Not canonically, Sup Forums. As I already stated (if you read the fucking post) it's only because of toon force and no one but the reader can notice it moving. It's like if they were to make a live action Sailor Moon and they actually did the giant cartoon sweat mark, but they explain it away as Sailor Moon having a robotic hologram that creates constructs based off emotions. It's fucking stupid.

True, fuck man why can't there be a good spider-man

...

mad dc fag is mad

You see those funny markings on the page? Those are called words you're supposed to read them. It says, "they can hear it in his voice"
They don't see his eyes moving that's a styistic choice by the artist In-Universe it's his VOICE that tells them he's mad.

Out of touch old stooges think that they need to re-invent Spider-Man to be with the times.

Are you are a retard? Rami got critized for static eyes and no humor.

Romita drew his eyes moving before your dad was sperm.

>his eyes don't move in the comics

filthy casual summerfag

The suit pops because of its colors and symmetrical design, not the silver cage wrapped around it.

Considering this Parker is supposed to have made it himself, what reason could he possibly even have to meticulously add raised webbing to 50% of the suit, even the fucking fingers?

That is one shitty digital suit. I have to say.

BRAVO

Lol. Are you srs try to downplay source material.

Highly deluded homo, mad Disney did the eyes better. Now using mental gymnastics about other stuff. Yet avoid the eyes I shown.

Even cartoon did it. Kys casual.

The people criticizing him were wrong. The eyes are static in continuity. Only the reader can see the eyes moving, what's so hard about that to comprehend?

Maybe cause it's a movie? Relax man.

The real Shocker is still alive.

yeah that's totally it, man. you hit the nail on the head. no way anyone just enjoyed it for what it was and wasn't going in expecting a perfect Spidey film after 6 adaptions which progressively got worse with each release.

>It's a stylistic choice
Because the artist isn't an idiot and realizes Spider-man's eyes need to show emotion.

In the movie they give an explanation for why the eyes can zoom in, because they also realize Spider-Man's eyes are better when they show emotion, it's the same fucking thing - it's done for visual appeal alone.

...

Why would he call himself anything else?
What else would he call himself?
"Say, frog man, how'd you get your powers?"
"Radioactive spider bite"
"... Then why do you call yourself frog man?"
*Shrug*

And why do you think the reader is shown the eyes moving?

Could it be because it's more engaging and looks better?

Because it's an artistic choice. Ever notice how whenever there's a serious moment the eyes go static?

Billion more.

So, they still move? They're still constantly used to show expression. Whenever Spider-Man is surprised they widen, when he's angry they turn to slits.

You know you posting these doesn't disprove anything anyone has said because they already addressed it, right?

Yeah, but it's a movie. Giving it an In-universe explanation is fucking retarded. People wouldn't give a fuck if his eyes were emoting without an explanation.

No, the reader perceives them as changing depending on the artist.

>namefag calling someone else a stupid casual

Meant to send this to

>it's an artistic choice
A choice every single Spider-Man artist has agreed on.

If the static eyes are so great and essential to Spider-man, how come every animated adaption has gone for moving ones?

>Giving it an In-universe explanation is fucking retarded.
Why?

Mook#1 fucking died and Mook#2 ain't gonna call himself the fucking Shocker like this is pro-wresting after seeing Mook#1 get vaporized. There is going to be no Shocker. He got mocked and that's the end of it.

The bottom just looks too much like rubber CG.

Combine this suit with MCU's eye movement tech and you've got the perfect spider-man suit.

Because it's fucking pointless and best. The in-universe justification is it's tactical use. Then why are they reacting to any emotional responses? Again nobody would have cared if we didn't get an explanation.

>A choice every single Spider-Man artist has agreed on.
Bull fucking shit they have. Only some artists use it, not all of them, read a comic. Spider-artists like Ditko, Paul Lee, and Phil Jimenez don't.

>If the static eyes are so great and essential to Spider-man, how come every animated adaption has gone for moving ones?
TAS

Agreed

It's just a small throwaway line. And don't say people wouldn't have fucking shat on it if they had simply been magically moving like Deadpool's.

Big eye Spidey is how it's supposed to be. Sony/Marvel need to fuck off with that gay shit little spider eyes.

Shut up, Avi, go ruin Venom again

Except nobody shit on Deadpool for it.
it's just a comic movie, you don't need to explain every little detail. Besides who would drop a movie just because the eyes move without explanation? Not general audiences.

I'll take the raised webbing over that other shit. Looks like it was drawn on with a dying sharpie marker.

Nigger, that's a picture of Peter Parker thinking about his work as Spider-Man. What you just described has literally never happened.

I'll never understand how someone can defend this garbage design

Because it doesn't have ugly web pits.

It's actually real and not CGI.

this is autism

Jokes on you fuckos, i like them both. Oh... oh god... am I... becoming an indifferent normie?! No! It can't be true! It has to be a lie!

Apparently stating facts is autism now. Go figure.

lol

except for the times when it was

It looked good in action.

>spider-man moving eyes being invisible to everyone but the reader is a fact
???

That has zilch to do with the actual design

>I'll never understand how someone can defend this garbage design

Because aside from the raised webbing and the webbing color change, it's virtually identical to the comic Spider-Man.

It is. That's why it's never referenced, like, at all. And that's why whenever there's a serious moment the eyes go static. That's also why (and this is the biggy) some artists don't do them.

Doesn't have random tacticool lines.

>call it a Spider-Man movie
>doesn't even let him sell pizzas
What a blunder!

OH NOOOOOOO! DOCTOR CONNOR'S CLASS!