Were web shooters really such a problem in Raimi's film trilogy?

[Frontier]

Never understood why it was so bad that Spider-Man had organic webbing in the movie; it simplified the origin story, was a logical idea, and made for a good scene where he tried to figure them out.

I think Peter inventing his own webs help emphasize the kind of hero Spider-Man is and encapsulate Peter's science and creativity that lend itself to being Spider-Man, and wouldn't have changed much about the movies in my opinion.

[Brandonwong923]

Never really saw it as a problem. I kind of thought him losing his powers in Spider-Man 2 was Raimi's way of exploring that avenue but just by a little bit.

[DanMad1977]

Even as a kid I thought that Peter inventing Webs is stupid. No boy is that smart, even Tony Stark couldn't do it at the time.

I like the Raimi solution.

[Jman27]

I always thought thats how his powers work originally but we got web shooters in movies now and no one cares about it or praise it.

[Matt Parker]

I'm not a fan of them. They work ok with streamlining the origin but it undercuts Peter's brilliant scientific mind, and the Raimi movies never made up for that anywhere else. Sure, he had a few scenes where he spoke intelligently and passionately about science, and his intelligence was often noted by other characters, but it was never a major plot point. We never got a Far From Home esque scene of him using his smarts on the fly to jury rig some gadgets together to barley escape a situation he was outclassed in (I'm thinking of that scene on the bridge where begets past the drones after his webbing runs out). The Raimi films always missed that IMO. Seeing him build web shooters and other gadgets on scrapped together resources adds to the underdog nature of the character.

[maninthemacintosh1606]

I'm not a fan of them. They work ok with streamlining the origin but it undercuts Peter's brilliant scientific mind, and the Raimi movies never made up for that anywhere else. Sure, he had a few scenes where he spoke intelligently and passionately about science, and his intelligence was often noted by other characters, but it was never a major plot point. We never got a Far From Home esque scene of him using his smarts on the fly to jury rig some gadgets together to barley escape a situation he was outclassed in (I'm thinking of that scene on the bridge where begets past the drones after his webbing runs out). The Raimi films always missed that IMO. Seeing him build web shooters and other gadgets on scrapped together resources adds to the underdog nature of the character.

Raimi was making the films with no real guarantee that he would continue to do so - the prospect of a sequel was based on box office performance and other things. It tightened up the story and made the three acts play out better in the first film and also since the film was aiming to appeal to people outside of the comic book reading community, making him less of a genius and more of a nerdy but likeable character gave him more appeal and an identifiable quality for general viewers/ the demographic. Also a lot of these decisions would have been made in communication with producers, execs, financers, the studio, or as a committee and Raimi was always trying to deliver the best film that he could, changing an aspect of the character in order to make a better film - according to his lights, you might disagree - is something he is willing to do. Ultimately Raimi is guided by, 'is this entertaining, will people be entertained by this', and that is probably the best basis for determining why he did what he did.

[Matt Parker]

Raimi was making the films with no real guarantee that he would continue to do so - the prospect of a sequel was based on box office performance and other things. It tightened up the story and made the three acts play out better in the first film and also since the film was aiming to appeal to people outside of the comic book reading community, making him less of a genius and more of a nerdy but likeable character gave him more appeal and an identifiable quality for general viewers/ the demographic. Also a lot of these decisions would have been made in communication with producers, execs, financers, the studio, or as a committee and Raimi was always trying to deliver the best film that he could, changing an aspect of the character in order to make a better film - according to his lights, you might disagree - is something he is willing to do. Ultimately Raimi is guided by, 'is this entertaining, will people be entertained by this', and that is probably the best basis for determining why he did what he did.

These are great points, but I still don't care for the organic web shooters

[PCN24454]

Even as a kid I thought that Peter inventing Webs is stupid. No boy is that smart, even Tony Stark couldn't do it at the time.

I like the Raimi solution.

In the real world, that might've had merit, but this was based off of a superhero story where characters pull super-technology out of their basement all the time.

[maninthemacintosh1606]

These are great points, but I still don't care for the organic web shooters

All good! I think it is fine to not like something or not like an aspect of something whilst acknowledging that it isn't necessarily 'bad' or understanding the intention or motives for why the thing you don't like exists/is there.

[maninthemacintosh1606]

In the real world, that might've had merit, but this was based off of a superhero story where characters pull super-technology out of their basement all the time.

Eh, Peter was introduced as one of the first really relatable characters for young readers at the time - at least that's how the story goes relating to Stan Lee's thoughts on the character. I personally don't have any issue with the web shooters or anything, but if you go back and read Amazing Fantasy #15 I can kind of see why someone would find it a little jarring, for lack of a better word, since he doesn't just engineer and create webshooters from whole cloth, but the chemical mixture that makes up the webbing - which is as thin as actual spider webs but stronger than cable and with the shooters he could control how it is shot out. And it dissolves in an hour too. Of course Peter is a bookworm and very intelligent, in a way that doesn't not accord with his relatability, but accomplishing such a huge feat - which is covered in like 3 panels - is pretty amazing and I can see why it would give someone pause at least. After all, Peter creates the webshooters and the webbing for them as a high school kid in his bedroom. The chemical mixture alone, if we were to unfairly drop out suspension of disbelief, would be an incredible invention that would make him a renowned prodigy and genius and would be revolutionary to the scientific and engineering community, not to mention it'd probably make him a millionaire overnight, haha. But yeah, maybe Peter is that smart but it can be seen as kind of jarring in the context of the way the character is presented in the original story at least. But to be clear: I am on the webshooter side over the 'organic' side. One thing to be noted too is it gives Spider-Man another level of vulnerability and brings him more down to earth, so to speak, in that it allows writers to work with scenarios like, he runs out of the cartridge thingies he has to put in his webshooters, as in he runs out of webbing, or his webshooters don't work at some point for whatever reason, so more tension or stakes can be added to a Spider-Man story or offer a plotpoint or interesting aspect to an actions sequence, etc.

[PCN24454]

Eh, Peter was introduced as one of the first really relatable characters for young readers at the time - at least that's how the story goes relating to Stan Lee's thoughts on the character. I personally don't have any issue with the web shooters or anything, but if you go back and read Amazing Fantasy #15 I can kind of see why someone would find it a little jarring, for lack of a better word, since he doesn't just engineer and create webshooters from whole cloth, but the chemical mixture that makes up the webbing - which is as thin as actual spider webs but stronger than cable and with the shooters he could control how it is shot out. And it dissolves in an hour too. Of course Peter is a bookworm and very intelligent, in a way that doesn't not accord with his relatability, but accomplishing such a huge feat - which is covered in like 3 panels - is pretty amazing and I can see why it would give someone pause at least. After all, Peter creates the webshooters and the webbing for them as a high school kid in his bedroom. The chemical mixture alone, if we were to unfairly drop out suspension of disbelief, would be an incredible invention that would make him a renowned prodigy and genius and would be revolutionary to the scientific and engineering community, not to mention it'd probably make him a millionaire overnight, haha. But yeah, maybe Peter is that smart but it can be seen as kind of jarring in the context of the way the character is presented in the original story at least. But to be clear: I am on the webshooter side over the 'organic' side. One thing to be noted too is it gives Spider-Man another level of vulnerability and brings him more down to earth, so to speak, in that it allows writers to work with scenarios like, he runs out of the cartridge thingies he has to put in his webshooters, as in he runs out of webbing, or his webshooters don't work at some point for whatever reason, so more tension or stakes can be added to a Spider-Man story or offer a plotpoint or interesting aspect to an actions sequence, etc.

I never put too much stock in the “Spider-Man is Spider-Man because he’s realistic or relatable” thing that likes to be passed on around the fandom. Especially considering that most of that perspective comes from hindsight than actual planning.

Spider-Man is relatable because he himself is a person with goals and people he interacts with. He doesn’t represent any sort ideology. He’s just someone trying to grow and experience life on his own terms.

Him inventing gadgets like web-shooters does little to detract from that IMO.

[blackspidey2099]

I never put too much stock in the “Spider-Man is Spider-Man because he’s realistic or relatable” thing that likes to be passed on around the fandom. Especially considering that most of that perspective comes from hindsight than actual planning.

Spider-Man is relatable because he himself is a person with goals and people he interacts with. He doesn’t represent any sort ideology. He’s just someone trying to grow and experience life on his own terms.

Him inventing gadgets like web-shooters does little to detract from that IMO.

Yeah I agree 100%. Peter doesn’t have to be an average person to be relatable, he just needs to be put in and face the same challenges that many of us face everyday - ex. money problems, relationship issues, time management, etc. It’s more of a guideline regarding what situations Peter faces rather than what type of character he is. Peter has never been an average person in any sense of the word, since the very beginning of Amazing Fantasy #15 - if anything, I’d say that it’s pretty clear that the spider could have bitten anyone, but it’s Peter’s very own strength of will, sense of compassion, commitment to responsibility, intellect/ingenuity, etc. that make Spider-Man the “World’s Greatest Superhero”.

[Agent Z]

I never put too much stock in the “Spider-Man is Spider-Man because he’s realistic or relatable” thing that likes to be passed on around the fandom. Especially considering that most of that perspective comes from hindsight than actual planning.

Spider-Man is relatable because he himself is a person with goals and people he interacts with. He doesn’t represent any sort ideology. He’s just someone trying to grow and experience life on his own terms.

Him inventing gadgets like web-shooters does little to detract from that IMO.

"With great power comes great responsibility".

[PCN24454]

"With great power comes great responsibility".

He doesn’t represent it. It’s something that he (and his supporting cast) has to learn which I feel is something different.

He isn’t “made” of responsibility; he just shows it. He’s human and allowed to falter sometimes.

[Agent Z]

He doesn’t represent it. It’s something that he (and his supporting cast) has to learn which I feel is something different.

He isn’t “made” of responsibility; he just shows it. He’s human and allowed to falter sometimes.

By practicing an ideology, you are representing it. Of course Spider-Man isn't made of responsibility and yes he does make mistakes. That is not mutually exclusive with representing and preaching an ideology. Especially with how often writers have him utter some variation of that phrase.