Remember how they're going for grounded? Check out this logic:
What kind of scientific organization leaves out a bunch of genetically altered spiders on public display, when said spiders are still being experimented on and the full effects of what would happen if they came into contact with humans has been undetermined? Sounds kind of dangerous and definitely something they wouldn't do. Also, why the hell were they doing it? Does anyone ever ask that question? What in the world were those scientists even planning to do with genetically altered spiders? Nothing. They just did it. They came from comics, and their only purpose was to make a spider that could give an unassuming young man super powers. That is the absolute furthest extent of why they were even there in the first place.
Now jump ahead to TASM. Peter's dad is working on something related to spider DNA and human DNA. He was doing this when Peter was still a young child. Supposedly, his dad experimented on Peter to further his studies. Was this on purpose, or was he forced to do it by some unseen player? *cough*NormanOsborn*cough. Whatever the case, it forces he and his wife to leave the young child with his aunt and uncle and never to return. But to add to the uniqueness of this origin, Peter doesn't get superpowers from his father's experiments on him, but by getting bitten, very randomly I might add, from a curious spider at one of Osborn's facilities. Well isn't that something?
Now all of a sudden we have an intriguing mystery on our hands that revolve around our hero! How about that? This is just my theory, but I'm guessing Richard Parker was forced to experiment on his son by Osborn to further development on whatever genetic madness he has planned for the world. Richard, not wanting to endanger his son, but also making it look to Osborn that he is complying, creates a fail-safe in Peter's DNA alteration, that only a certain event, like say getting bitten by a genetically altered spider, would unlock the results of that particular experiment. Perhaps he did this in an effort to protect Peter? Maybe Peter discovers this along the way?
I don't know about you, but all of that sounds way more interesting than the random event that we've all come to know and love for the past 60 years. There's an actual story happening here. Not just shot-for-shot, "this is how it happened in the comics" nonsense. This is going to be a good Spider-Man story, not a good Spider-Man re-telling.
First of all, I'm not saying that the first Spider-Man film was perfect, and you do raise a good point about the downside with the way that particular film had Peter get his powers. In the original comics, at least, the scientists involved are not intentionally trying to create a "super-spider." It just so happens that a spider gets caught in some an "open-air radiation experiment" (yeah, yeah, I know it was the 1960s and we know much better now). Even when the Ultimate Spider-Man comic decided to use the genetically-altered spider route created by scientists, it's made very clear that they are test subjects being used to test an experimental super-soldier serum on and that one of them accidentally escapes.
Now, if this film is using that angle from Ultimate Spider-Man and making the added detail that it was Peter's dad who was the scientist who used these spiders as test subjects in his research, even though it still begs coincidence, the idea is still the same in that Peter doesn't get his powers due to anything "special" about him. However, if the rumor is true about his dad doing something to his DNA and the spider acts as a catalyst to "awaken" those powers already within him, not only does that make Peter "special" as opposed to "ordinary," it needlessly complicates how he got his powers. It's far easier to explain to people that Peter gets his powers from a radioactive/genetically-altered spider than it is to say Peter gets his powers through a combination of genetic-tampering by his dad when he was a kid and having a genetically-altered spider his dad also developed bite him and thus triggering his dormant powers.
Now, I understand they're trying to create a "mystery" surrounding his parents disappearance, adding in some kind of "dark conspiracy by a evil corporation" for good measure. Heck, I'm sure the logic behind having Richard Parker experiment on his own son for his own personal reasons is done in order to make him thematically similar to Curt Connors, who not only is apparently Richard Parker's old friend and colleague, but someone who is conducting experiments on himself using the same research for his own personal reasons, and thus making him that much more personal a villain for Spider-Man (even though he already was). The problem is, as you suggest, we have pretty good idea who the villain is and why Peter's parents disappeared and why they never came back. You can't really create much of a "dark conspiracy" and have it permeate for at least three movies if you pretty much can figure out fairly easily what that "dark conspiracy" actually is.
Finally, if you change the way how Peter gets his powers and becomes Spider-Man, then one can't exactly make the claim that this film will be a more faithful adaptation of the comics--which BTW is exactly what Sony and the makers of this film are suggesting with the whole "He has mechanical web-shooters and trash-talks bad guys and has Gwen Stacy as his first love interest instead of Mary Jane" while at the same time saying this film is a more "modern" "grounded" and "contemporary" take on Spider-Man. I do agree that, as long as you retain the core of what Spider-Man is, then one is free to tweak certain things. However, there are certain things which, if it gets tweaked too much, runs the risk of making them a completely different character. Remember the complaints people had about the Sandman being the real killer of Uncle Ben in
Spider-Man 3? I'm just afraid that, if what is being rumored about the alterations in Spidey's origin are indeed true, it could potentially be just as bad for the same reason that was.
You're missing the point entirely.
How do you know that he sees himself as a superhero? Maybe he does, but I'm willing to bet that he's gonna be so lost in the persona that he's created that he'll start believing himself that he's an outlaw vigilante. It is going to take the events of him stopping the Lizard's onslaught of NYC for everyone to recognize him as a hero and not a punk who's above the law, which I can almost guarantee you is what will come off as in his early crime-fighting career.
He will fight crime because he's taking responsibility for Ben's death. It's going to happen. We have no evidence to suggest it won't. He's going to beat up some dudes as Spidey for a while before that happens. He's going to piss off the NYPD by doing so because he's doing it recklessly and tagging his mark all over the city and making too big a name for himself. He don't get the responsibility thing yet. He will.
It doesn't matter if he's fighting crime because he's doing so for kicks or to "stick to the man" or "wanting to blow off some steam"--the point is, if he's fighting crime before Uncle Ben is murdered for whatever reason, then he's still using his powers for the greater good. Or at least he believes he is. In either case, he's still stopping bad guys and still saving lives. The reason why the original origin is so powerful and tragic is because when Peter first gets his powers, he's not thinking about
any of that. Fighting crime is not only the very last thing on his mind, he feels that it's not his duty to do so. If you have Spider-Man fighting crime before the tragic circumstances that led to Uncle Ben's death, you've basically made him no different than
this guy:
Plus even as not a long time comic fan, I've always found things I heard wasn't explored in Raimi's films interesting such as Gwen, Webshooters, Spidey's wit/antics etc. Shame the greatness of Alfred Molina's Doc Ock, J.K Simmons' Jameson, Rosemary Harris's Aunt May and the like will have to be replaced though, they're so iconic in the roles it's hard to live down anything else in cinematic form.
((
