addiesin said:
Well, hey, if it didn't bother you, it didn't bother you. As someone who's taught big classes before, it's incomprehensible to
me that you're passing out photocopies to your students and oblivious that there's an extra student who's not on your roll. It also just seems like super lazy/convenient writing to have the only instance of time travel indicated in the film be used to explain Gwen's presence. Time travel explanations are the crutch of desperate writers (unless your movie is all
about Time.) (Also, ALSO Gwen explains her presence at the school by saying she felt "called" there by her Spider-Sense [because now that's how Spider-Sense works??] except that why would she be called there before Miles was ever bitten?! Her Spider-Sense no longer senses danger but is now some kind of divination device?!)
Then we have Kingpin, a Prohibition-era mobster caricature. Doc Ock wants to work on a particle collider, fine, but in this universe Kingpin also thinks warping dimensions will allow him to rewrite his past and will work on a billion dollar experiment for that? Okay, fine, so it's a very different Kingpin than we've ever seen before, but I'll try to run with that. So we're meant to believe he's
simultaneously bankrolling experiments on spiders that would replicate Spider-Man's powers?
Why? It's not tied to his motivation. We don't see anything about these experiments. He doesn't know what gave Spider-Man his powers. Nobody we see in the movie is a genius bio-chemist. And it would be super-weird to run these experiments in the hidden sewer next to a particle collider that distorts reality! They'd be totally separate from each other, assuming you believe they co-exist. It's just a deus ex machina thrown in and then hoping the audience will buy the explanation "Uhhh...Because Science!" just because they don't want to see yet more exposition and yet another Spider-Man origin (even though the film shows 6 Spider-Man origins...) Sorry, not on board. It's just lazy.
I'm fine if people like things more/less than I do, it's cool. What I do wish, though, is that people would be more open to admitting the faults in what they like. Like, I've historically been a huge Star Wars fan, but I'll admit those are not perfect films. It seems like often these days, especially on the internet, no one can admit there are flaws in the things they like. Like that would somehow lessen their like for the thing? (Not directed at anyone in particular, I just often find myself in the position of criticising a critical darling and being met with a wall of opposition.)