Where did I infer the film had to slavishly follow anything? Your initial comment acted as if the webshooters were a contrarian concept to oppose Raimi's vision. That is completely ignoring the precedent it has in every other interpretation pre-2002.
Hold on. You stated (to infer is to deduce/conclude
not imply) where other interpretations of the character have employed artificial webshooters; the film ought not to deviate from this tradition. Which gives me the impression that if one is to be bothered about minutiae such as organic/artificial webbing then we may as well translate every single minute detail to the screen. Will it really affect your experience of viewing the film if he shoots web naturally? This is the ultimate question.
Furthermore I did not state nor imply that the argument for artificial web shooters was purposesly there to oppose a previous interpretation. I know full well that Spider-Man has employed self-made web shooters since the very inception of his character. You're the one missing the point. The point is a studio may think in myopic terms as: "well the last films had Spidey shoot web naturally. Let's make him different and shoot it from a 'device'!" The implication is studios believe that such simple changes in detail translate to wholesale changes in a character. When it is no more than a superficial change. I'm far more concerned with how Spider-Man will be characterised (the inclusion of more humour or 'quips' etc) than if he shoots web naturally or not. The vast majority of cinemagoers will accept it I imagine. Which they seemed to do last time.
By the same regard, if the very concept of webshooters is a superficial element, then it doesn't really matter if organics are there, correct?
No, the superficial element is the way in which he secretes his web.
And you're completely missing the point that the ability to secrete webs is inherently tied to physiology. What are you not getting here?
The irony is you'll happily accept a man who has the characteristics of a spider conferred upon him by a spider bite yet you find it very difficult that he would also be able to secrete web as a spider does. When I mentioned mutation I meant that he wouldn't sprout six legs and six eyes. Would the audience require a portion of the screen time devoted to detailing how a man's anatomy has adopted web secretion? If yes then we may as well indulge half the film explaining how a man has spider characteristics. By virtue of what Spider-Man does he defies human physiology.
How can you bring "sense" into this topic when you've completely thrown that out the window?
We're talking about a fictional character who has no basis in reality and all I've expressed is a preference or predilection for this same character to secrete web biologically. It is the manner in which you reply to my posts which does not involve much sense.
This isn't really about that. From the very beginning of the thread, "logic" and "plausibility" has been used to argue against either concepts. It's more than obvious the general audience really doesn't give a damn. But to be honest, their opinion doesn't matter when adapting material they know next to nothing about.
My entire point was that if an audience can suspend disbelief that a man who has acquired the capacity to do things a spider can, they will not need to question how such a man can create web naturally. To me, it follows on logically from Peter Parker gaining these 'powers'.
I understand and appreciate the argument that there is a function or rather purpose behind Peter Parker utilising artifical webbing. Such as the notion it demonstrates his intellect and scientific accumen by creating such a thing. However, it's Spider-Man's character which shows how Peter Parker is remarkable. Some one made reference to the Flash Thompson character. Where Peter Parker's intelligence is the distinguishing factor by making webbing in a laboratory. They miss the point that it's Peter Parker's character which distinguishes him from Flash Thompson. It would be far too easy and tempting to use such powers for personal and financial gain. Rather than use them for an altruistic and noble cause.
The thing in which I'd be interested is if Peter Parker finds a break-through in material design by studying the web he naturally secretes. Perhaps being able to create artificial webbing. What may satisfy both camps is that during the first film. Peter Parker's anatomy has not mutated fully to allow himself to create web. So he has to do it in a laboratory.
I found this excerpt on Wikipedia:
The discovery of silk-producing organs on the feet of the zebra tarantula (Aphonopelma seemanni) has led to questions about the origins of spinnerets. It has been hypothesised that spinnerets were originally used as climbing aids on the feet and evolved for webmaking at a later time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinneret_(spider) (link)
Whether it is based in fact? I don't know but it's interesting nonetheless.
t:
