The Amazing Spider-Man Keep the ORGANICS or WEB SHOOTERS???!!!!

[spider-neil]

ShhHHhhHh! You wanna give Sony ideas?

By the way, I think that armoured van robbery in SM1 was the best part of all 3 movies. Unfortunately...

great scene and a great back somersault to punch out two guys at once

 

[craigaat]

Oh God, not this again.

It's such a stupid argument.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

I guess me referencing web shooters taking precedent has been lost on you. Praytell, what was the situation with webshooters pre-Raimi? Was it deemed a broken concept?

It hasn't been lost on me at all. I appreciate and understand the meaning of the web-shooters. I like that it represents Peter Parker's ingenuity and technological accumen - a great metaphor as Dangerous said (although not the only way). However, I feel strongly that a hybrid system is key. I think if things can be done differently which evolve a concept rather than be tacked on for appearance sake then yes try them. A wrist device which manipulates web excretion betters both the comic and film interpretations through it giving Spider-Man a bigger arsenal from the previous films but staying faifthul to the concept that a man bitten by an arachnid absorbs its characteristics 'fully'. It shows a man who has accepted and embraced his new existence by melding the two concepts in an ever more intricate fashion. Whilst Spider-Man can have a utility belt I'd prefer it if the wrist device took that role exclusively (he can point and shoot bugs or tracking devices for instance).

I'm certainly glad you've made my point for me. You clearly were not around message boards at the time of Raimi's first go-round at the character.

I didn't need to be around for that long to recognise that given the thread author's limited 'brief' in his opening thread. This thread it seems was designed (at least in part) to provoke these sort of heated debates. Instead of discussing seriously, the merits of organic/artificial/hybrid concepts. We've given it to him on a plate. I'd rather tie this one off before we embarass ourselves further and waste even more virtual space.

I've only mentioned the precedence because you initially brought up the trilogy as defending their presence. This is all well and good, except I never proclaimed the audience would not like it. You seem to have agreed that both work, so you have reached a stalemate. Can you understand why I've been so dismissive of that "point" in the first place?

I brought up the trilogy because I felt it showed how the fans after seeing the first film had no major problem with the organic concept. If something which contradicts 40 years and more of established lore, can be accepted after the first film. Then this has large implications. You say if something is not broken then don't fix it which applies to the films as much as it does to the comics. I don't prefer organic webbing because I feel the other is a faulty premise but simply because I feel it works perfectly fine on film. My view is that we should concentrate on what didn't work with Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films rather than draw a list of what we'd like to change, merely for stylistic reasons. Otherwise all these additions of which we'd like, will be lost due to sloppy storytelling.

Please stop playing with semantics. When you write "purposefully different", of course I'm going to read that as adversarial to the concept. You're not insinuating an innate nature of being dissimilar, but the volition of contradistinction.

Don't blame me for your myopia. You attributed (and you alone) that I accused others of being contrarian. To me, there is a distinction between wanting to be different (i.e. stylistically) and being opposed or against an idea. I made no suggestion that those individuals for the artificial web-shooters were being polemic at all. You interpreted an innocuous comment as being more aggressive or even accusatory. I merely felt inititially there was a sentiment to change that specific detail for the sake of it because it is different (and not because they didn't like organic webbing).

I really don't care so as long people realize the design falters upon close inspection.

I've already detailed my reasoning for the past preference of organics. To me, if I can accept a man bitten by a spider who then acquires the abilities that a spider possesses. Which requires one to suspend disbelief an awful lot. Then I don't see how I can oppose or dismiss the aforementioned idea without questioning how a man can receive spider abilities from an insect bite in the first place. Furthermore, I really enjoyed seeing the organic web-shooters because I instead expected it to be like the comics. So it surprised me but I felt it worked and so I eased into the idea. Because I've never questioned it since, I don't see why it should be changed. I'd only want to change it if I felt unsatisfied. I have no compunction to change. Do you understand?

Wall-crawling via hair-like fibers growing all over his body, superhuman strength via proportionate strength of a spider, and the spider-sense myth is based on an arachnid's fast reflexes to environmental vibrations. Even Stan had the strength of mind to exclude organic spider-webs, because he couldn't think of a plausible explanation for their existence on Peter's wrists. Hell, Raimi didn't even bother with it.

Sam Raimi didn't bother with explaining anything beyond a genetically engineered spider transferring its powers to Peter Parker after biting him. So forget the "how would a spinneret-forearm work" when one has to explain how a genetically engineered/radioactive spider gives you its powers from a bite. You shouldn't separate the two. That's the whole point with Spider-Man. You do not need to explain all of it because we accept the whole premise fully. To me it seems absurd to separate one matter from others. It seems nonsensical. A criticism of "well it deviates from the comics" is perfectly fine although I don't agree with it (caveat: films tend to alter few details for thematic/dramatic purposes) but questioning organic web-production when you've already accepted everything else seems banal.


Now this has gone beyond petty and I think for the interest of keeping this thread going and with substance. It should move to what purpose would either concept have.

Artificial web-shooters:

a) does he have more than one type of web? (I know he does in the comics but this can evolve over the trilogy)
b) what gives him inspiration to develope the web formula?
c) perhaps Peter Parker performed a dissection of a spider in order to study its web-producing ability (before being bitten)
d) if Peter Parker creates his own web-formula, what's the reason not to patent it?

 

[The Lizard]

I'm shocked and appalled at the number of people who support organic webshooters... Stan Lee would vomit in horror. I thought mechanical would be the favourite by a land slide, instead I find that its barely the majority.

I think people feel less strongly about it these days due to the fact that:

A. They got used to the organics in the Raimi movies

B. The organics were used in the comics for a while (rather lamely, I might add, but whatever).

C. There are more young Spidey fans around now who didn't grow up seeing Spidey have mech-shooters only.


I'd prefer to see the mechs in the reboot of course, but I found I was able to ignore the organics pretty successfully after their brief introduction in the 2002 movie.

So I don't see the classic website "no-organic-webshooters.com" making a comeback for the new reboot. t:

 

[Mach2Infinity]

I think people feel less strongly about it these days due to the fact that:

A. They got used to the organics in the Raimi movies

B. The organics were used in the comics for a while (rather lamely, I might add, but whatever).

C. There are more young Spidey fans around now who didn't grow up seeing Spidey have mech-shooters only.


I'd prefer to see the mechs in the reboot of course, but I found I was able to ignore the organics pretty successfully after their brief introduction in the 2002 movie.

So I don't see the classic website "no-organic-webshooters.com" making a comeback for the new reboot. t:

Did Stan Lee air his opinion publicly on the organic/artificial debate?

Another thing people must bear in mind. There's bound to be a large number of fans who started to read the comics after they saw the Sam Raimi films. As other have said, despite their flaws they did set a benchmark and indeed gave us this new wave of superhero films.

 

[Nathan]

Did Stan Lee air his opinion publicly on the organic/artificial debate?

Honestly, I think he said why didn't he think of that. But just because the man gives his approval, doesn't mean I don't want to see the mechanical webshooters anymore. They are still one of my favorite gadgets in comics.

And they bring a lot more to the character than organics ever could.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

Honestly, I think he said why didn't he think of that. But just because the man gives his approval, doesn't mean I don't want to see the mechanical webshooters anymore. They are still one of my favorite gadgets in comics.

I didn't intend on using his name to prove a point, just a matter of curiousity. Perhaps it's a reflection of times where we can more easily accept the organic web-shooters. Precisely because comics and characters such as Spider-Man broke the mould.

And they bring a lot more to the character than organics ever could.

Well they add a different dynamic or element to the character. How great is such an element will vary from reader to reader. I think you mooted a possible hybrid device in one of these posts and I think it would be fantastic for the designers to come up with a device which shapes the organic web and has a lot of great features too. Which is why to me it seems the logical next step if we are desperate to evolve or adapt the organic concept. If a compromise can be reached then it should be done.

 

[The Lizard]

Did Stan Lee air his opinion publicly on the organic/artificial debate?

Stan never rocks the boat with any of the Marvel superhero movies. He just sticks to the PR script and generally supports them. He publicly stated he was fine with the organics in the films, but who knows what his actual opinion is.

 

[Dragon]

Did Stan Lee air his opinion publicly on the organic/artificial debate?

He said two things. In a TV documentary about the possiblity of Spider-Man being real, he said he hadn't thought of organics, but might have used them if he did.

Stan also said, just after the first film was released that he understood that Sam didn't think he could make the mechs work on film, but that he himself could have. This to wild applause from the audience.

Another thing people must bear in mind. There's bound to be a large number of fans who started to read the comics after they saw the Sam Raimi films. As other have said, despite their flaws they did set a benchmark and indeed gave us this new wave of superhero films.

Yeah, and those people reading the comics would see that the webshooters were mechanical.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

Stan never rocks the boat with any of the Marvel superhero movies. He just sticks to the PR script and generally supports them. He publicly stated he was fine with the organics in the films, but who knows what his actual opinion is.

Well I think privately he probably would have preferred they stick to the original artificial concept. However since they worked in the films and I don't see any lasting repercussions. He's not going to mind if they use an organic web-shooter again. I think if someone suggested a hybrid device, he'd probably be receptive because I suspect even at this stage. He likes a character to evolve. Well clearly he does since the various comic interpretations have persevered.

 

[NinjaCarm]

Web-Shooters and scenes / flashbacks of Peter making his costume.

This is a reboot not a rehash (organics / costume out of nowhere, etc.)

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I wouldn't mind the web shooters. But they have gotta make it believable that this piss poor kid has the resourcefulness to invent these things on a tight budget.

I mean, he can barely afford to pay his rent, but he can invent web shooters?

 

[Mach2Infinity]

Yeah, and those people reading the comics would see that the webshooters were mechanical.

No the point is if one can accept everything they see on screen which sparks their interest in the comic character, then surely it is a sign of tacit approval. At the end of it, either concept works perfectly fine so whichever one they choose will not detract from the character. I simply feel happy with the way it was done on film. Others may not or simply would like to see the artificial web-shooters with which they grew up (because they're more accustomed to it). As someone has said Spider-Man has had organic web-shooters in the comics so it wasn't a completely alien concept.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

I wouldn't mind the web shooters. But they have gotta make it believable that this piss poor kid has the resourcefulness to invent these things on a tight budget.

I mean, he can barely afford to pay his rent, but he can invent web shooters?

"Necessity is the mother of all invention"

I don't have a problem with believing Peter Parker's socio-economic group would have trouble inventing some web-shooter/utility device. Particulary if this Parker Peter is a scientific man (which he is of course) and coupled with that interest/passion he would find a 'hardware' shop to buy all the necessary parts.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well yea there you go, they need to make sure his intelligence and resourcefulness shines through.

And not just go BAM poverty striken kid invents web shooters!

 

[Nathan]

I wouldn't mind the web shooters. But they have gotta make it believable that this piss poor kid has the resourcefulness to invent these things on a tight budget.

I mean, he can barely afford to pay his rent, but he can invent web shooters?

Web-shooters aren't exactly that impossible. It's simply a device that lets him shoot strings of web-fluid from a high pressurized cartridge. And people posted already several possible scenarios of Peter aquiring the web-formular without pulling it out of his ass.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

Web-shooters aren't exactly that impossible. It's simply a device that lets him shoot strings of web-fluid from a high pressurized cartridge. And people posted already several possible scenarios of Peter aquiring the web-formular without pulling it out of his ass.

He could be performing dissections of spiders. Analysing how they secrete and excrete their web. All in the lead up to him being bitten by one. He could even keep some as pets. As long as there's focus on him being a talented chemistry student (rather than physics) then I think it would work even more.

 

[Crook]

A wrist device which manipulates web excretion betters both the comic and film interpretations through it giving Spider-Man a bigger arsenal from the previous films but staying faifthul to the concept that a man bitten by an arachnid absorbs its characteristics 'fully'. It shows a man who has accepted and embraced his new existence by melding the two concepts in an ever more intricate fashion. Whilst Spider-Man can have a utility belt I'd prefer it if the wrist device took that role exclusively (he can point and shoot bugs or tracking devices for instance).

What you've described isn't all that impressive though. Certainly not a great representation of Peter's vast intellect. It's akin to a garden hose or shower-head settings. It only serves to filter the substance and alter the type of output. I much prefer your initial idea that Peter studies silk secretions (be it from himself or spiders), and gets the idea to use it as web shooters.

I didn't need to be around for that long to recognise that given the thread author's limited 'brief' in his opening thread. This thread it seems was designed (at least in part) to provoke these sort of heated debates. Instead of discussing seriously, the merits of organic/artificial/hybrid concepts. We've given it to him on a plate. I'd rather tie this one off before we embarass ourselves further and waste even more virtual space.

I'm just correcting your original claim that this discussion hasn't been long battled. This is just a continuation of what was started nearly a decade ago in this very same place, whose original intention was to gauge fans' thoughts on Raimi/Cameron's new idea.

Don't blame me for your myopia. You attributed (and you alone) that I accused others of being contrarian. To me, there is a distinction between wanting to be different (i.e. stylistically) and being opposed or against an idea. I made no suggestion that those individuals for the artificial web-shooters were being polemic at all. You interpreted an innocuous comment as being more aggressive or even accusatory. I merely felt inititially there was a sentiment to change that specific detail for the sake of it because it is different (and not because they didn't like organic webbing).

Let me give you a scenario: Everyone outside is wearing blue. I decide to wear red, because I prefer that color. That is a personal (stylistic) choice independent of outside factors. If I decided to wear red because I hated blue, or I did not want to follow the crowd, that is a conscious decision to go against the grain; i.e. purposefully different. The difference between the former and latter in decision-making is that the former does not have to consciously consider anything, as it happens naturally (e.g. I like red, I'll go out in red). You have suggested the latter, which is distinctively analytical.

I commend your resilience, but drawing this out is nonsensical. Either admit you misspoke in meaning, or that you're wrong. I promise you no one will hold it against you. I misspoke earlier (infer instead of imply), and you rightfully corrected me. I'm ok with that. We all make mistakes.

I've already detailed my reasoning for the past preference of organics. To me, if I can accept a man bitten by a spider who then acquires the abilities that a spider possesses. Which requires one to suspend disbelief an awful lot. Then I don't see how I can oppose or dismiss the aforementioned idea without questioning how a man can receive spider abilities from an insect bite in the first place.

With all due respect, I do not care for you to explain your preference or your level of disbelief. These are both purely subjective and every person's right. To argue it is irrational. I've noted several times in this very thread if a person just says "I like organics", I will not contend it. When it extends to "I like organics, because logically it only makes sense..." -- that's when I'll butt in. That opens the door for expository dialog rooted in "logic" as it has been introduced.

Sam Raimi didn't bother with explaining anything beyond a genetically engineered spider transferring its powers to Peter Parker after biting him. So forget the "how would a spinneret-forearm work" when one has to explain how a genetically engineered/radioactive spider gives you its powers from a bite. You shouldn't separate the two. That's the whole point with Spider-Man. You do not need to explain all of it because we accept the whole premise fully. To me it seems absurd to separate one matter from others. It seems nonsensical. A criticism of "well it deviates from the comics" is perfectly fine although I don't agree with it (caveat: films tend to alter few details for thematic/dramatic purposes) but questioning organic web-production when you've already accepted everything else seems banal.

His powers HAVE been explained. I listed them for you. One has to first suspend their disbelief that powers can be transferred from a spider to a human in the first place. That is your biggest hurdle. Once that's over with, the rest follow through pretty easily. Spidey's powers all fall within the bounds of fringe science. It stretches the limits of plausibility, but rational nonetheless. Organic webbing (in the way Raimi has presented it) stands out because it has no foundations under biological or scientific principle. I don't mean a little, or a sliver. None, whatsover.

I suspect you know this, because you have yet to successfully tackle the organics issue head-on. I've not read one statement backing up the concept, without relying on the inclusion of the other powers. That's not how one debates, that's circumventing the issue. So I'll make this real simple for you: can you debate the involvement of organics alone under semi-logical terms without referencing outside agents or inconsistent methodical explanations?

Artificial web-shooters:

a) does he have more than one type of web? (I know he does in the comics but this can evolve over the trilogy)
b) what gives him inspiration to develope the web formula?
c) perhaps Peter Parker performed a dissection of a spider in order to study its web-producing ability (before being bitten)
d) if Peter Parker creates his own web-formula, what's the reason not to patent it?

a) That'd be up to how Peter configures the shooters. It's more than possible.
b) I'm personally not in favor of him solely developing it, as that does merit a great (albeit acceptable) amount of absurdity.
c) Prone to contrivances from a creative standpoint.
d) He's a superhero at that point. Either he risks exposing his identity, or you sacrifice the integrity of the character by seeking profits. It can be argued that the patent itself could solve all his problems while being a potential breakthrough technology for the world..but then you wouldn't have a Spider-Man

 

[Raiden]

I think organic web shooter is something that Raimi wanted which isn't consistent with Spider-man's origin, and for that result I think they should have web shooter in the reboot. It'd also send a powerful message that this is a REBOOT, not a sequel of Raimi's Spider-man movies.

 

[BillyZaned]

I think organic web shooter is something that Raimi wanted which isn't consistent with Spider-man's origin, and for that result I think they should have web shooter in the reboot. It'd also send a powerful message that this is a REBOOT, not a sequel of Raimi's Spider-man movies.

not as powerful as having him have an organic web shoot that shoots from his butt!!!!

 

[Raiden]

not as powerful as having him have an organic web shoot that shoots from his butt!!!!

It's hard to aim when you have to stick your butt in the air, though.

 

[BillyZaned]

It's hard to aim when you have to stick your butt in the air, though.

he'd be more like a spider though...

ass shooter.... away!!!!!!!

 

[david icke]

For me, the only reason I'd prefer the mechanical web shooters is so that they could have some moments when he runs out of web fluid at important moments, or they get jammed up or damaged through misadventure. So if i had to choose one right now, I'd choose mechanicals.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

What you've described isn't all that impressive though. Certainly not a great representation of Peter's vast intellect. It's akin to a garden hose or shower-head settings. It only serves to filter the substance and alter the type of output. I much prefer your initial idea that Peter studies silk secretions (be it from himself or spiders), and gets the idea to use it as web shooters.

I couldn't think of a greater compliment to Peter Parker's intellect than an invention which fuses his own biology with experimental technolgy. The very idea that a man can design an intricate device which interacts with his own complex biology (one which is unique) and manipulate it so deftly is something which in my view would be more technologically advanced than mere artificial web-shooters alone. To say such a concept "isn't all that impressive" is rather bemusing.

I'm just correcting your original claim that this discussion hasn't been long battled. This is just a continuation of what was started nearly a decade ago in this very same place, whose original intention was to gauge fans' thoughts on Raimi/Cameron's new idea.

I don't recall stating that this issue hasn't long been battled at all, nothing to correct. In fact I acknowledged that due to the heated nature of the debate in the past. The thread author must've known such a debate would be re-ignited with equal volatility. My comments explicity referred to my perceived intention of the thread author. Who gave no brief or set of questions from which to base a serious and involved discussion. That's not to say he intended to incite others to argue but one motive may have been to see such arguments. Certainly he gave no clear direction for any discussion.

Indeed all he said was:

This thread was bound to be birthed, so....

Indicating a certain familiarity with the subject (and in my view its polarising effect).

It seems from reading the bulk of posts here that most people would not mind if the organic web-shooters were kept in place. Even by many who favour the artificial web-shooters. This is key if one is to appraise the viability of continuing the idea of organic web-shooters. Do they take away anything from the character? Can they be improved?

If I decided to wear red because I hated blue, or I did not want to follow the crowd, that is a conscious decision to go against the grain; i.e. purposefully different.

I cannot put my position more clearer. My comment was in reference to my perception that many who preferred the artificial web-shooters did so to fit a stylistic change or brief. I.e. it's a new film, everything must change for the sake of it because it's a different continuity. The only analogy I can use is that there's option A and option B. To me it seemed people thought "well we've had option A so let's try option B. Scenario: "Why? What's wrong with option B?" "Nothing, it's just an alternative and I want to try it because it's never been done." Ergo there is no animosity if you will towards option A. It fits the mandate that one should change every detail simply because a re-telling of a story will happen.

I commend your resilience, but drawing this out is nonsensical. Either admit you misspoke in meaning, or that you're wrong. I promise you no one will hold it against you. I misspoke earlier (infer instead of imply), and you rightfully corrected me. I'm ok with that. We all make mistakes.

You're the who's drawn it out because you insist on fixating on a very innocuous comment. If you're going to insist on my words having a certain inflection which is against what I said (in my view you are twisting and contorting them) then of course I will 'defend' my position. You should simply accept my words and not attempt to be imperious by asserting you know better. It would be supine and disingenuous of me to 'admit' that I got it wrong. Because I think someone is being utterly pedantic on my chosen phrase and enlarged it into a quantum of great proportions.

With all due respect, I do not care for you to explain your preference or your level of disbelief. These are both purely subjective and every person's right. To argue it is irrational. I've noted several times in this very thread if a person just says "I like organics", I will not contend it. When it extends to "I like organics, because logically it only makes sense..." -- that's when I'll butt in. That opens the door for expository dialog rooted in "logic" as it has been introduced.

Well I do not care for you to explain either and I will not solicit such comments. If someone came to me and said "I have an idea for a character. He's called Spider-Man and he gains spider abilities from being bitten by a specially endowed spider." If he were to go on and say "he can crawl walls, jump high, run fast, has hyper-reflexes bordering on precognition and he excretes web." To me they're all equally fantastical which is why I make no distinction among whether a certain power is more plausible or not. Simply because the central conceit that a man receives spider abilities from a spider bite is the only leap of faith one must make in accepting the character. Everything else is mere colouration. Which is why I said "logically..." because a spider secretes and excretes web. The way in which a man would do it would alter drastically of course but one doesn not need to get into the mechanics of it.

His powers HAVE been explained. I listed them for you. One has to first suspend their disbelief that powers can be transferred from a spider to a human in the first place. That is your biggest hurdle. Once that's over with, the rest follow through pretty easily. Spidey's powers all fall within the bounds of fringe science. It stretches the limits of plausibility, but rational nonetheless. Organic webbing (in the way Raimi has presented it) stands out because it has no foundations under biological or scientific principle. I don't mean a little, or a sliver. None, whatsover.

I never questioned Spider-Man powers, indeed I accept them wholeheartedly. Which is why I have no difficulty whatsoever in embracing the organic web-shooters. To me they feel as a natural complement to a man's arsenal who incidentally is called 'Spider-Man'. There's nothing rational about a man acquiring spider characteristics from a spider bite. If we were referring to genetic manipulation or 'gene therapy' (a precise science) then you could give a human being virtually any ability (a spinneret would not be the most extreme one could include).

I suspect you know this, because you have yet to successfully tackle the organics issue head-on. I've not read one statement backing up the concept, without relying on the inclusion of the other powers. That's not how one debates, that's circumventing the issue. So I'll make this real simple for you: can you debate the involvement of organics alone under semi-logical terms without referencing outside agents or inconsistent methodical explanations?

First of all I will debate how I deem fit. I do not debate within the confines or parameters that others set. To demand such of someone is rather arrogant and myopic. In addition, it is absurd to separate one particular power from others. Considering these are abilities that are quite inherent and natural to a spider. It's ludicrous to try and apply "logic" to explain how a man's biology can specifically accommodate web-production when one must also explain the changes in physiology and anatomy that allows Spider-Man to do the other things he does. All of his abilities are inextricably linked since he received them from the same source. To question this reality is to bring everything into question and not simply one facet of his powers. However, since you think it is implausible that Spider-Man would have web secretion/excretion abilities (since typically a spider uses its abdomen) then I shall present this article (based on fact):

BBC

I shall post key points:

Scientists have shown how spiders made to scale vertical glass surfaces will secrete a fibrous "glue" to anchor themselves down and prevent a fall.
Arachnids are known to use claws to negotiate difficult terrain, and they also have tiny hairs that can form weak electric attractions with a surface.

.....

"We have discovered that the tarantula has a third attachment mechanism, which depends on fibres exuded from nozzle-like structures on its feet."

.....

"These fibrous secretions function as silken tethers and, when laid down on glass plates, appear as 'footprints' that consist of dozens of fibres with diameters of 0.2-1.0 [millionths of a metre]."

.....

The team studied how zebra tarantulas (Aphonopelma seemanni) from Costa Rica managed to hang on to vertical glass plates.

.....

Generally, spiders will extrude a silk from abdominal structures known as spinnerets. This fine thread is used in a range of activities from capturing prey to providing protective shields for developing young.
The team wonders which of the adaptations - foot silk or abdominal silk - came first; or, indeed, if they evolved completely independently.

The implication is that if certain species of spider's are known to excrete web from their legs (they have no other limbs). Then it increases the 'plausibility' that if a man inherited the spider's abilities, he would be able to shoot web from his limbs as this particular spider does. Now a film doesn't have to explain where ever single web-nozzle is located on Spider-Man body does it? Only where it is relevant.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

For me, the only reason I'd prefer the mechanical web shooters is so that they could have some moments when he runs out of web fluid at important moments, or they get jammed up or damaged through misadventure. So if i had to choose one right now, I'd choose mechanicals.

I understand that it would add a potential level of danger or dramatic tension to the plot. Although if he were to employ hybrid web-shooters then there would be room for it. Moreover, even organic web-shooters are bound to have a finite supply of web (which should strongly be indicated in the film) and so he can run out. I'd like to see how these abilities affect his metabolism and how he needs to eat more etc.