Originally Posted by SlamAdams
I don't mean narration. I mean unnecessary, wordy exposition. I don't like people standing around saying "Well, this happened because..." and then give a shoddy explanation. That is lazier than just going for it in my opinion.
I don't care how human the people were in Indiana Jones and James Bond, they literally dropped you in the middle of a story with absolutely no idea what was going on or what was supposed to be going on.
Spiderman got bit by a suped up Spider and than fought a man-lizard. No amount of explanation made that more realistic or serious.It was realistic and serious because under the science fiction were human characters going through human emotions that were handled in my opinion with the kind of respect they deserve. Batman and Robin explained exactly to a T how Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy got their powers. They were never made any broader than that (except for the frozen tear scene). It was super-lazy and a fine example of exactly what I don't want and sounds exactly like what your are asking for.
You are too concerned with superpowers. I don't care about superpowers. I don't want an adaptation of the Marvel Handbook. I only care that it is a good movie that takes its interesting characters and challenges them with an interesting plot. Explaining the window dressing doesn't make for a good movie. Plenty of superhero movies do that and they still suck. A prologue is mostly just for fun and eye candy but it brings with it a powerful message that Spiderman has been doing more than stopping pickpockets and purse snatchers. With one supervillain getting his butt whooped in the beginning, you establish a broader science fiction reality better, more excitingly, and more organically than Nick Fury stepping out of the shadows and saying (and I paraphrase) "you just entered a bigger world"
Narration is lazy. Exposition is generally lazy, but these things are necessary in sci-fi/fantasy. It doesn't have to be characters standing around talking. That's not even what I'm asking for if you've properly understood my post. Not sure what you're on about with that.
For instance, we saw Peter get bit by a genetically modified spider. BAM. Spider-powers. That's suspension of disbelief. Connors injects himself with a cross species formula he created and becomes a giant lizard. BAM. Suspension of disbelief. These things are inherently absurd and we, the audience understand that and accept it for the sake of the story. There is a problem when you introduce an absurd element into a film which is not absurd (and TASM's world is grounded if we can go by TASM). There's a HUGE difference in introducing Dr. Connors and seeing and understanding why he becomes the Lizard and dropping the Shocker in the opening minutes (though they are both absurd). Get it? I'm concerned with the characters, not the superpowers. It needs to make "sense" within the framework of the story first and foremost, and fanboy pleasing action spectacle second.
Just "going for it" with no explanation is something we can expect from childrens cartoons and videogames.
If the film were to open by dropping us into the action with Spidey taking on some guys robbing a bank or whatever, that would be just fine- Just like the Bond and Indy films. That would be great in fact.
The problem arises when you introduce an absurd element (Shocker,Rhino) with no precedent or explanation for why they're there, in a world that has been established isn't running wild with super villains and that we are in fact meant to recognize as something more akin to our own according to Marc Webb.
It's a lazy cop-out to insist that since two absurd elements (Spidey,Lizard) were introduced, that the gates are now open for any absurd element to be introduced, no explanation required. Which is exactly what you insist by dropping Shocker in the opening credits. "It's a comic book movie" is the laziest cop out ever.
Yes. we all understand suspension of disbelief. Again, realism's got nothing to do with it. Spider-powers are inherently unrealistic. Yes, we know that and we accept it. This is basic storytelling.
You're taking what I wrote and you're interpreting it quite literally. I'm not even sure what you're on about here. It's not about "realism" or being "serious" . It's about the filmmakers establishing a tone and sticking to it. Not lazily dropping in fanservice characters with no explanation in a world with no precedent for it. Might as well be watching a cartoon at that point.
Unfortunately, in a movie like this, which is aiming for a more "grounded" approach (according to Webb- and which TASM accomplished quite well), we do need explanations for why absurd things happen. "It's a comic book movie" is not an explanation. It's lazy.
Not sure what you mean about being "too concerned with superpowers". What does that even mean? I wholly accept that a man can have electric powers or turn into a lizard as long as it operates under the films own logic.
Of course we're all concerned with it being a good movie with a good story- but the film must obey and be consistent with it's own internal logic. Though if you don't understand by now why throwing Shocker or Rhino in the opening minutes automatically lowers the film to the juvenille level of a cartoon, then I don't know what to say. We should expect more from our movies.