Nike Foamposite - ParaNorman - Teaser pics

You sound like a beast, bro.

Saving face on a message board? Nah, it's not that serious. This is shoes we're talking about. :lol:

The beast in you shows that you're more mad of the fact that you don't have a pair, moreso than you're assumption that I'm mad at a possible wider release.

Only foam that I have that I would be a little upset of if they were to re-release is the Armies.

In my opinion, those hold more weight than these Normans, twitter/auction/resell/future release or not.
 
I heard about the possible re release a day or 2 b4 I traded for mine,& I still went ahead with the trade,c'mon u think Nike is gonna drop the exact same shoe,trust me it's gonna be another sc galaxy rookie/store release galaxy release,there will be differences.
 
HEADdetective said:
You sound like a beast, bro.

Saving face on a message board? Nah, it's not that serious. This is shoes we're talking about.
laugh.gif


The beast in you shows that you're more mad of the fact that you don't have a pair, moreso than you're assumption that I'm mad at a possible wider release.

Only foam that I have that I would be a little upset of if they were to re-release is the Armies.

In my opinion, those hold more weight than these Normans, twitter/auction/resell/future release or not.
Click to expand...
not that serious yet continues to respond? hmm...........
eyes.gif


i got my pair for free posting a pic of me as a mummy. don't be mad you had to pay for yours. when they come out again, you bet this hypebeast will get another and flip those as well. problem?
 
Last edited:
Not to intrude too far into your discussion, but I think more is made of a shoe's "value" than is needed, especially when it comes to really expensive shoes.

If I spent $1,000 on a shoe and it was subsequently more widely released, I'd be upset to a degree. I won't lie. Not because it "devalued" my pair, but because I could have gotten what I wanted by paying much less. That's not a "beast" thing, that's a principle thing. You feel like you got played by the brand.

But, at the same time, if you are in the position to pay $1000 for a pair of shoes, then getting snaked out of a few hundred bucks by Nike's shady release practice isn't something that should impact your pocket too much. So, it's one thing to be irked on principle. But, if the fact that something you paid $1000 for is now really worth more like half that or something and that gets you way aggy over the money aspect of things, then you were probably playing way over your head when buying $1000 pair of shoes in the first place.
 
Last edited:
that's the thing. value is based on a case by case basis. i don't think it's too far fetched to say one would understandably be upset if something limited is then later mass produced. if i would've paid for mine and still had them knowing more would be produced, you can gladly call me a hypebeast. call it what you want, but it's not an uncommon feeling to have exclusivity diminished. it's a level of materialism. these are shoes. we are on a forum comprised of collector's of wants. we don't need them. 5-10% of people in here actually wear their shoes for their athletic purpose. i can buy a cheap pair of keds if i needed to protect my feet. like i said. easier to save face and type what you think people want to hear or read. at the end of the day, i didn't like mine enough to keep them at the price that was offered to me. you call it being a beast bc i don't value them the same way as you, i call it a bonus to my bank account.
 
The Antidote said:
that's the thing. value is based on a case by case basis. i don't think it's too far fetched to say one would understandably be upset if something limited is then later mass produced. if i would've paid for mine and still had them knowing more would be produced, you can gladly call me a hypebeast. call it what you want, but it's not an uncommon feeling to have exclusivity diminished. it's a level of materialism. these are shoes. we are on a forum comprised of collector's of wants. we don't need them. 5-10% of people in here actually wear their shoes for their athletic purpose. i can buy a cheap pair of keds if i needed to protect my feet. like i said. easier to save face and type what you think people want to hear or read. at the end of the day, i didn't like mine enough to keep them at the price that was offered to me. you call it being a beast bc i don't value them the same way as you, i call it a bonus to my bank account.
Click to expand...

Like you, I did not pay for my pair. That's just another incorrect assumption on your part.

Buying something just because it's limited is, in my opinion, the exact definition of a beast.

So for you to say that if you bought something which was labeled as limited, and then you'd be upset if it were later massed produced because of the diminished exclusitivity, would label you as such. A Beast.

At the end of the day, you made xThousand dollars, and I just obtained a shoe that I actually like, where the value isn't equivalent to dollars and cents.
 
The Antidote said:
that's the thing. value is based on a case by case basis. i don't think it's too far fetched to say one would understandably be upset if something limited is then later mass produced. if i would've paid for mine and still had them knowing more would be produced, you can gladly call me a hypebeast. call it what you want, but it's not an uncommon feeling to have exclusivity diminished. it's a level of materialism. these are shoes. we are on a forum comprised of collector's of wants. we don't need them. 5-10% of people in here actually wear their shoes for their athletic purpose. i can buy a cheap pair of keds if i needed to protect my feet. like i said. easier to save face and type what you think people want to hear or read. at the end of the day, i didn't like mine enough to keep them at the price that was offered to me. you call it being a beast bc i don't value them the same way as you, i call it a bonus to my bank account.
Click to expand...

Well, that's generally fair too. When the "market" deems something more valuable than you do, you should sell it. That's not being a beast, that's being a rational economic actor.

And, I also agree with you that most "collectors" don't want to admit the role that "exclusivity" has in their tastes. People like to draw this clear line between "beasts" and "purists" but in most cases that's a false dichotomy. 90% of people in this hobby fall within some shade of grey.

Some people recast their desire for exclusivity in other ways - ways that aren't recognized as "beasting" but play the same chord. ...Dudes who say, "I'm not wearing my joints for 6 months because I don't want to wear what everybody else is wearing." Without even getting into the irony of claiming that you are buying some of the most popular shoes in history to stress your individuality, you are making a decision based on perceived exclusivity - i.e. letting what other people wear or think of what you wear determining whether you want to wear it. Those people aren't called out as beasts, but they are operating from the same mindset. To me, that's being a "beast" too

Now, even myself, I'm vintage above all. Yes, the quality and the accuracy of older shoes are WAY better. But, I'd be lying if part of the reason I love having the older stuff is because most don't. Vintage is rare too. Yea, Nike Air on Jordans is what's supposed to be, but there's also something nice about knowing that you have something that other people want and have trouble getting. That doesn't make you love sneakers any less. I still go crazy for certain stuff that very few people care about because I care about it. But, it's foolish for anybody in this hobby to pretend they aren't even 1% beast.

That said, if you know Head from his time here, it's also foolish to think his only reason for liking these kicks is their market price.

I think you both have fair points, but are somewhat mischaracterizing one another on this black and white scale of beast and purist, instead of acknowledging the much larger grey area between.
 
Last edited:
point taken. i came in this thread simply to antagonize. i got the typical responses i was looking for and, therefore, i shall be on my way.
 
BIP Roberts said:
Well, that's generally fair too. When the "market" deems something more valuable than you do, you should sell it. That's not being a beast, that's being a rational economic actor.
And, I also agree with you that most "collectors" don't want to admit the role that "exclusivity" has in their tastes. People like to draw this clear line between "beasts" and "purists" but in most cases that's a false dichotomy. 90% of people in this hobby fall within some shade of grey.
Some people recast their desire for exclusivity in other ways - ways that aren't recognized as "beasting" but play the same chord. ...Dudes who say, "I'm not wearing my joints for 6 months because I don't want to wear what everybody else is wearing." Without even getting into the irony of claiming that you are buying some of the most popular shoes in history to stress your individuality, you are making a decision based on perceived exclusivity - i.e. letting what other people wear or think of what you wear determining whether you want to wear it. Those people aren't called out as beasts, but they are operating from the same mindset. To me, that's being a "beast" too
Now, even myself, I'm vintage above all. Yes, the quality and the accuracy of older shoes are WAY better. But, I'd be lying if part of the reason I love having the older stuff is because most don't. Vintage is rare too. Yea, Nike Air on Jordans is what's supposed to be, but there's also something nice about knowing that you have something that other people want and have trouble getting. That doesn't make you love sneakers any less. I still go crazy for certain stuff that very few people care about because I care about it. But, it's foolish for anybody in this hobby to pretend they aren't even 1% beast.
That said, if you know Head from his time here, it's also foolish to think his only reason for liking these kicks is their market price.
I think you both have fair points, but are somewhat mischaracterizing one another on this black and white scale of beast and purist, instead of acknowledging the much larger grey area between.
Click to expand...

While you may be right about "collectors" and how exclusitivity plays a role in their taste, what about the people, like myself, who don't deem themselves as "collectors", but merely dudes who just like shoes?

Every shoe I buy, or obtain in this matter, will eventually be worn. I say eventually because I'm no longer in school and my full time job doesn't allow me to wear sneakers, not even on casual Fridays :lol:

"Collectors" buy shoes to place them on a pedestal for staring contests/sneaker events, etc.

Then you have the Beasts that thirst for limited items, whether they truly like them or not. This seems like the category that took this hobby to a different level.

You got cats who grew up waiting for that new eastbay magazine, or Slam/Kicks magazine just to see what new shoes were dropping. The value back then was the shoe itself. For some, this remained the case.

Nowadays, cats place the value strictly on how limited the shoe is or how much money they can garnish in the secondary market. I ain't even mad at it. It just goes to show how times have changed and how what once was looked upon as something that cats actually liked turned into moreso of a who has the most limited shoes and how much can I flip these joints for on eBay.

I'm not a pretender. I'm not a collector. I'm not a sneakerhead. I'm not a beast. I'm just a regular cat who has liked shoes since I was a youngin. Maybe I'm a part of that grey area you're speaking of, only without the inner Beast it sounds like you're implying.
 
HEADdetective said:
BIP Roberts said:
Well, that's generally fair too. When the "market" deems something more valuable than you do, you should sell it. That's not being a beast, that's being a rational economic actor.
And, I also agree with you that most "collectors" don't want to admit the role that "exclusivity" has in their tastes. People like to draw this clear line between "beasts" and "purists" but in most cases that's a false dichotomy. 90% of people in this hobby fall within some shade of grey.
Some people recast their desire for exclusivity in other ways - ways that aren't recognized as "beasting" but play the same chord. ...Dudes who say, "I'm not wearing my joints for 6 months because I don't want to wear what everybody else is wearing." Without even getting into the irony of claiming that you are buying some of the most popular shoes in history to stress your individuality, you are making a decision based on perceived exclusivity - i.e. letting what other people wear or think of what you wear determining whether you want to wear it. Those people aren't called out as beasts, but they are operating from the same mindset. To me, that's being a "beast" too
Now, even myself, I'm vintage above all. Yes, the quality and the accuracy of older shoes are WAY better. But, I'd be lying if part of the reason I love having the older stuff is because most don't. Vintage is rare too. Yea, Nike Air on Jordans is what's supposed to be, but there's also something nice about knowing that you have something that other people want and have trouble getting. That doesn't make you love sneakers any less. I still go crazy for certain stuff that very few people care about because I care about it. But, it's foolish for anybody in this hobby to pretend they aren't even 1% beast.
That said, if you know Head from his time here, it's also foolish to think his only reason for liking these kicks is their market price.
I think you both have fair points, but are somewhat mischaracterizing one another on this black and white scale of beast and purist, instead of acknowledging the much larger grey area between.
Click to expand...
While you may be right about "collectors" and how exclusitivity plays a role in their taste, what about the people, like myself, who don't deem themselves as "collectors", but merely dudes who just like shoes?

Every shoe I buy, or obtain in this matter, will eventually be worn. I say eventually because I'm no longer in school and my full time job doesn't allow me to wear sneakers, not even on casual Fridays
laugh.gif


"Collectors" buy shoes to place them on a pedestal for staring contests/sneaker events, etc.

Then you have the Beasts that thirst for limited items, whether they truly like them or not. This seems like the category that took this hobby to a different level.

You got cats who grew up waiting for that new eastbay magazine, or Slam/Kicks magazine just to see what new shoes were dropping. The value back then was the shoe itself. For some, this remained the case.

Nowadays, cats place the value strictly on how limited the shoe is or how much money they can garnish in the secondary market. I ain't even mad at it. It just goes to show how times have changed and how what once was looked upon as something that cats actually liked turned into moreso of a who has the most limited shoes and how much can I flip these joints for on eBay.

I'm not a pretender. I'm not a collector. I'm not a sneakerhead. I'm not a beast. I'm just a regular cat who has liked shoes since I was a youngin. Maybe I'm a part of that grey area you're speaking of, only without the inner Beast it sounds like you're implying.
Click to expand...
lol. just looks you're trying too hard. while you're busy going on a rant categorizing others attempting to put yourself in an upper echelon of your own, the irony is that you're categorizing yourself with just that. irony! i collect and i sell. i don't go out of my way to make it seem like i'm a regular joe sticking to my "roots". keep writing novels trying to justify yourself though. 
roll.gif


okay. now i'll head on out.
 
Last edited:
Cool story, but my response was to Bip, not you.....you already admitted why you were in this thread to begin with. :smh:
 
Head,

I feel you. Just to be clear, some of this is really an issue of semantics. I use the term "collector" as a shortcut. I don't consider myself a "sneakerhead" per se, or a "collector." Like you, I'm just a dude who loves shoes. ...I have come to the point where I won't even say that every shoe I own will be worn though - it's just not practical. I'm a 30-something dude who works an office job and all that jazz. I have more than 300 pairs of shoes and get can't even get around to wearing half of them, let alone the fact that I'm still constantly buying. But, whether you or I actually will wear every pair of shoes we own isn't really the point.

My point is just that as pure as your love for kicks is - and I think I'm a damn high on the purist spectrum myself - it also feels good to have something other people want - we're soicalized to be that way to at least some degree. As George Carlin said, coveting thy neighbor's goods is the backbone of the economy. Now, if you are buying things you don't like or can't actually afford because you want to "break necks" then you're a total beast. And, if you are living some hermit life with the world's biggest collection of Lottos and Etonics that you've never shown anybody then you are the perfect purist. But, despite how often people try to identify as one extreme or the other, very few people are actually that extreme.
 
got rid of mine.

i had to; i would have never worn them.

copped a pair of tan yeezy 1s and put the rest of the cash in savings.

buyer got a pretty good deal too
 
I understand that the limited quantities make them more desirable but I already wanted them, bad. So I don't even want to see them if I can't cop. Also these would kill if the green was purple.
 
Grave digging.

I love mine tho. Couldn't believe I won. Still haven't worn em. Waiting til our local showcase.
400

400
 
I know this isn't the LC thread but can I get a quick opinion on these? Fakes or the real deal?

1000
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Good deal on Paranorman Foamposites?
Replies
1
Views
456
retro fiend
retro fiend
lazk
Nike SB Dunk High Pro x Concepts Ugly Christmas Sweater 2017 - Insole question…..
Replies
0
Views
735
lazk
lazk

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom