No you didn't explain it. You just said that Peter's father research was the reason why he got bit by a spider and that it had interfered "with the character's essence." I was interested in the reasoning behind this.
Peter's contact with the spider is always motivated by his scientific curiosity. In the comics, it's because he is interested in radiation and now it's because he is interested in that specific experiment as it's part of his father's research. Only the origin of his motivation changes but not his natural scientific curiosity, nor the extraordinary nature of the accident. In neither case, Peter is aware that he's going to be bit by a radioactive spider (the event is equally unexpected). And in both cases, he's a good-hearted kid, shy, curious and nerdy; the essence never changes.
"This could happen to any kid" is an essential mandate for the Spider-Man origin, in my opinion. Peter is uniquely brilliant, sure, but he represents the plentiful geeky kid with an ordinary, mundane life who dreams of one day acquiring the power to stand out... and then does. That's a pillar of the fantasy behind the character. Once you buy into that fantasy, feasibility is irrelevant.
In TASM, this goes out the window. There's now an element of predestination around him that, like I said earlier, is not only foreign to the character's appeal to begin with (did someone give two ****s about his parents during those first Lee/Ditko issues?), but is very evidently an attempt to cultivate sequels. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but a) Not only does it not develop satisfactorily, and it keeps the movie from standing on its own; and b) Like I explained above, it interferes with the "essence" of the character... or my take on what that is, you can take it or leave it. I brought up SM1 as an example of how needless it can be to reach for such foreign -shoehorned, I would call them- elements. That movie told a story about the character by the end of which you didn't care about his freaking parents or why they died, but you did know who Spider-Man was and what he was about. TASM didn't have to go for the exact same, but what it did choose to go for was the wrong choice IMO.
Discussing it so extensively makes it sound like I have a bigger problem with it than I actually do... but if we're comparing the two, when it comes to a purer, more distilled portrayal of the character and the themes that surround him... SM 1 wins hands down. I can smell your disagreement from here, but that is my argument. I hope it's clearer now.
When you said: "The Raimi movie was wise enough to leave the parents well enough alone'" "that's what Spider-Man is about. SM1 knew that. TASM didn't" and "I still think that SM1 stands head and shoulders over TASM."
Yes, while talking about the "faithfulness" the movies have to the character, and also in the overall sense... but not in
every single specific aspect. You took it to mean that. I never mentioned the bullying scenes, never mentioned the "NYers come to help" thing either.
You wanted "something to make [Flash] feel emasculated and foolish and humiliated." She did that. She nullified him in such a way he had to leave. He had no comeback, he knows he's not a bright kid when it's about his studies and thus he was humiliated. She treated him as what he is, a child.
Just what exactly did you have in mind?
I just don't think she did. It's an introductory scene, where clarity is key in regards to conveying just what kind of person she is. What you say about it may be true, but it's far too mellow,
inappropriately mellow. The way it plays, it feels like she soothes him with a random reminder of their tutoring session from later that day... something that has nothing to do with the events at hand. Why, out of all the possible ways to face him, would she choose that one? It just feels like they went for something, and that 'something' wasn't attained.
I gave the example of the "There's something about Mary" scene, where Cameron Diaz grills the guy that beats up her mentally challenged brother.
So, you missed the part where he was shot in the leg and had problems swinging as he usually does? Check the movie, it's there.
Again, the scene is not about how the father knew that his plan was going to work, but that he had to do something to help the man who saved his son. Normally, Spider-man has to "fall" on building walls. With his leg hurt that becomes a problem.
The scene may not be about that, but it is a question one has the right to ask. And once I do -I stated my logic issues earlier- the emotionality of the moment just falls apart, because it feels hokey and artificial and forced. It's almost like math: things just don't add up for that moment to work as an emotional beat to me. The leg thing is just not true, because I have seen him swing plenty of times without touching surfaces. See? Things don't add up. The intention was good, I don't deny that. If only they'd come up with something better that actually worked.
And people appearing from nowhere just because Spider-man needed to be saved in that exact moment, that's the definition of forced.
They can both be forced. Both, in fact, are.
You don't have to name them one by one. But since you stated that the scene "falls (for way too many people to ignore) completely flat," I thought that you had at least an idea of how many people they were. Because, according to you, that's why we can't ignore it.
Okay, a roundabout number... no, I don't have one. I don't know all the people who have seen the film or expressed an opinion online. But I have, most certainly, heard the criticism many times, and from many sources. That gave me the confidence to use the words "many people".
Then keep your accuracy to the maximum.
Whether I do or don't, I don't think people should get testy on a personal level over the discussion of a film. It's a fair point.