Marvels biggest slap in the face!!!

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Loki882

True, but they never killed anyone. The guy that's ACTUALLY a murderer is the only one to live. There's something wrong with that.

But he's not a bad person. His finger just slipped.

[Chris B]

Originally Posted by seishin87

Well, Favreau had Mandarin in some of his early scripts for the first film, but from the sound of things had more to do with that Character's powers rather than who he was. If I recall Favreau's take was supposed to be a Chinese version of Tony Stark. He would have still been an Asian villain, an idea that would have been axed for IM3, given the Chinese funding, had it survived. It's no secret that China doesn't like movies that pit a western, white hero against an Asian antagonist and will censor or outright ban them.

Had The Mandarin been closer to Favreau's earlier idea China wouldn't have had anything to do with funding it. While it's Shane Black idea, and he's taking credit for it do you really think he's going to outright say something like "yeah I had this idea for IM3 but in some of the meetings with the various producers I was told that our Chinese co-funders would rather not have an Asian villain as the main antagonists" ? I'm not saying I'm correct, this is just speculation on my part but to think that things like that don't happen in the business is naïve.

From what I've heard Mandarin wasn't even going to be in IM3 till late into scripting. Almost like they shoehorned the character in. I just get the feeling that there was far more to the changes to the Mandarin then just it's cool twist to divide the fans. They made a statement, a critique of stereotyped ethnic villains, in mainstream western entertainment and even the news media. If that was all Shane Black's idea and politics then...Bravo!

While I agree that concerns over the Chinese market was a gigantic factor in why we didn't get a Chinese Mandarin, Black did deride the character as a racist caricature shortly after getting the director's chair in 2011. So I'd imagine that the whole twist was more-or-less his idea since it doesn't seem as though he would have ever gone for a more faithful rendition of the character.

[Loki882]

And all the people that he inevitably killed or maimed during his various rampages after he became Sandman, what's his excuse for those?

[Shikamaru]

There was never going to be a faithful-to-the-comics Mandarin to begin with. Favreau established this all the way back when he was working on IM1.

The problem is not that they deceived us by not having the Mandarin of the comics, but by not having the Mandarin of the trailers.

[Human Torch]

Originally Posted by Loki882

And all the people that he inevitably killed or maimed during his various rampages after he became Sandman, what's his excuse for those?

They don't show any other "kills" by Sandman apart from the accidental death of Ben.There's no reason to assume he killed anyone else,any more than you can say Ock was a killer.(another "good man" who became a villain)

[Kahran Ramsus]

Ock was a killer though. He killed all those doctors in the hospital when he awakens.

[Loki882]

He was crashing into buildings, smashing cop cars, throwing vehicles around, in the middle of NYC, people died.

[Human Torch]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

Ock was a killer though. He killed all those doctors in the hospital when he awakens.

This is true,but he was unconscious at the time.So it's really the arms that did the killing.

[Human Torch]

Originally Posted by Loki882

He was crashing into buildings, smashing cop cars, throwing vehicles around, in the middle of NYC, people died.

There was still no indication that he killed anyone.The movie goes out of it's way to tell us that Marko isn't a stone cold killer.The only time he's seen trying to kill someone is Spidey at the movie's climax,because Venom convinces him it's the only way to keep Spidey from stopping his attempts to steal for his daughter's sake.

[Green Goblin]

I get sympathy adds depth to characters but I felt the changes in SM3 was taking it too far. Ock already had sympathy aspect to him (abusive childhood) and while he was great I never got why Rami changed him in the first place.

[Loki882]

Originally Posted by Human Torch

There was still no indication that he killed anyone.The movie goes out of it's way to tell us that Marko isn't a stone cold killer.The only time he's seen trying to kill someone is Spidey at the movie's climax,because Venom convinces him it's the only way to keep Spidey from stopping his attempts to steal for his daughter's sake.

He doesn't have to intentionally kill someone. He was going on a rampage in the middle of NYC, crashing into buildings, destroying cars, etc. PEOPLE DIED, it doesn't need to be spelled out, its common sense.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by Green Goblin

I get sympathy adds depth to characters but I felt the changes in SM3 was taking it too far. Ock already had sympathy aspect to him (abusive childhood) and while he was great I never got why Rami changed him in the first place.

Raimi didn't actually add that much to Ock. He's basically the same character as the comics with minor modifications and a bit of an expansion. The big change was ending his story by redeeming him, which doesn't happen in the comics because he's an iconic villain and needs to be around to sell future comics years down the road. Between the tentacles taking over his mind and the ending he's the same character he's always been.

Sandman is a bit different because he essentially doesn't have real character beyond his powers in the comics. Raimi had to do something otherwise there was nothing there to make a film out of. I'm sure Webb will do something similar with Rhino and Electro.

[Human Torch]

Originally Posted by Loki882

He doesn't have to intentionally kill someone. He was going on a rampage in the middle of NYC, crashing into buildings, destroying cars, etc. PEOPLE DIED, it doesn't need to be spelled out, its common sense.

All I remember was him throwing a few cops around when he was hiding in the sand truck.That hardly can be called a rampage,and very unlikely to have caused death.

He was even reluctant to fight Spider-Man,originally.("Leave now".)

A better case could be made that Batman was more reckless with the lives of cops in Batman Begins.Only they had sense enough to confirm there was no deaths.("It's a miracle no one was killed.")

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

The problem is not that they deceived us by not having the Mandarin of the comics, but by not having the Mandarin of the trailers.

This.

I'm ok with having a Mandarin not like the comics and more like a terrorist figurehead as seen in the trailers. At least that guy still retains the key essential core character elements to who he was. I mean didn't we all think Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins was a great interpretation and we all thought we were going to get a formidable villain just like that for Iron Man?

This plot twist is a cop-out and reduced Iron Man's worth as a superhero.

[OcStat]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

Raimi didn't actually add that much to Ock. He's basically the same character as the comics with minor modifications and a bit of an expansion. The big change was ending his story by redeeming him, which doesn't happen in the comics because he's an iconic villain and needs to be around to sell future comics years down the road. Between the tentacles taking over his mind and the ending he's the same character he's always been.

Sandman is a bit different because he essentially doesn't have real character beyond his powers in the comics. Raimi had to do something otherwise there was nothing there to make a film out of. I'm sure Webb will do something similar with Rhino and Electro.

Incorrect. The tentacles were never in control of the person. The accident itself and the realization of his transformation drove him insane. But Otto Octavius even before the accident was not the scientist portrayed in Spider-Man 2. They changed his personality pre- and post-accident in the film. In the comics, he always was, and is, a cruel person.

That isn't to say the movie didn't make a great Dr. Octopus, but one thing it can't get points for is it's accuracy. Which really shouldn't be surprising, how many comic villains do we have that are as accurate as we like to think?

Incorrect on Sandman as well. Marko was initially a crook but Raimi actually followed his long term story line fairly well, as after years of beat downs and failures, Sandman made an honest effort to reform, and was almost a card-carrying Avenger. The creation of his daughter and that story line was, I'd assume, a way to show that desire to leave a life of crime, without having to display years of getting his sandy behind handed to him by Spidey.




The "This isn't the Mandarin from the previews!" complaint is getting really old, and totally has no weight. In my opinion.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Movie Ock is still a scientist who has mechanical arms melded onto his body because of a lab accident, goes insane, and then becomes a criminal to fund his crazy experiments. That's all in the film. That he suffers brain damage or that the arms have an AI that affects his mind is a very minor difference, as is the addition of his wife. For the record, I don't think the nature of his insanity matters one iota, and making his pre-accident character a likable, but still flawed person was an improvement.

For Sandman, I have to admit I'm more familiar with the classic version of the character where he's basically just a generic thug. Either way, we seem basically on the same page that the change was necessary. Quite frankly, I actually like the Movie Sandman character for the first two acts even with the whole shooting Uncle Ben twist. But like pretty much the rest of the movie, things fall apart in a mess of sloppy writing in the final act once Venom enters the picture. Had Sandman really died at the end of the subway fight, I think he would be regarded better than what he is. Sandman's motivations in the final act don't really make sense thanks to the removal of The Vulture in favor of Venom.

[OcStat]

The primary difference is in the films he isn't acting on his own will as much as listening to what his added arms tell him to do. It makes Ock a puppet, in a way. I suppose it could be argued he was more insane than the film would like you to think and the arms aren't so much talking to him, but his insanity projects his own malevolent desires into something he can communicate with. But the film makes it pretty clear the arms are talking directly to him, a separate entity which shares his brain. That isn't a minor difference. Ock is a megalomaniac, and a egotist, he wants to succeed no matter the cost, and prove to the world his genius. All his decisions, all his own doing.

Now to be fair, this stuff only dawned on me recently, when I realized in altering Dr. Octopus, they essential shafted the Lizard. The sympathetic scientist is supposed to be Curt Connors, but that characterization was taken. It is why Connors in Amazing has that feeling of "been there, done that" to some. Which makes me wonder why they left out his family as that would have been the biggest thing to set Connors apart. I have seen people say Amazing shouldn't touch Dr. Octopus because the portrayal in SM2 can't be topped. For these reasons, I disagree.

If I recall correctly, the "good side" of the Sandman started to come around in the 80's, most likely because the character was wearing thin, so the idea that he is just a common crook isn't too far off the mark. I thought Sandman was interesting in 3, and didn't initially mind the shooting ret-con (because at the end of the day, the incident is still Peter's fault, and he wouldn't let go of that guilt regardless). I didn't even mind that Peter forgives him, but the way that it all plays out in the film is undeniably "" worthy.

[Human Torch]

I wonder how people's perception of Sandman's redemption would be different if the original deleted scene (Where Sandman's daughter tells him "Don't kill Spider-Man.I'm gonna die anyway." that was supposed to exist was included?

Frankly,I'm glad it wasn't included,as the film's ending was somber enough,IMO.But I'm sure it would've gone a long way to appease fans who enjoy the grim,joyless take most non Marvel SH films have taken these days.

[Loki882]

Originally Posted by OcStat

The primary difference is in the films he isn't acting on his own will as much as listening to what his added arms tell him to do. It makes Ock a puppet, in a way. I suppose it could be argued he was more insane than the film would like you to think and the arms aren't so much talking to him, but his insanity projects his own malevolent desires into something he can communicate with. But the film makes it pretty clear the arms are talking directly to him, a separate entity which shares his brain. That isn't a minor difference. Ock is a megalomaniac, and a egotist, he wants to succeed no matter the cost, and prove to the world his genius. All his decisions, all his own doing.

Now to be fair, this stuff only dawned on me recently, when I realized in altering Dr. Octopus, they essential shafted the Lizard. The sympathetic scientist is supposed to be Curt Connors, but that characterization was taken. It is why Connors in Amazing has that feeling of "been there, done that" to some. Which makes me wonder why they left out his family as that would have been the biggest thing to set Connors apart. I have seen people say Amazing shouldn't touch Dr. Octopus because the portrayal in SM2 can't be topped. For these reasons, I disagree.

If I recall correctly, the "good side" of the Sandman started to come around in the 80's, most likely because the character was wearing thin, so the idea that he is just a common crook isn't too far off the mark. I thought Sandman was interesting in 3, and didn't initially mind the shooting ret-con (because at the end of the day, the incident is still Peter's fault, and he wouldn't let go of that guilt regardless). I didn't even mind that Peter forgives him, but the way that it all plays out in the film is undeniably "" worthy.

The biggest problem with the Sandman retcon is that it removes Peter motivation to be Spiderman in the first place. Peter had the power to stop that robber easily, but he chose not to for his own selfish reasons. As a result, the robber escaped and shot Uncle Ben. His death was partially Peter's fault, and Peter wants to make up for that by helping other people. That's where "with great power comes great responsibility" comes in. Sandman being the killer destroys that since it DIDN'T MATTER what decision Peter made, Uncle Ben would have died either way.

[Kahran Ramsus]

That was the only real problem I had with the retcon besides the previously mentioned third act issues.

[OcStat]

Originally Posted by Loki882

The biggest problem with the Sandman retcon is that it removes Peter motivation to be Spiderman in the first place. Peter had the power to stop that robber easily, but he chose not to for his own selfish reasons. As a result, the robber escaped and shot Uncle Ben. His death was partially Peter's fault, and Peter wants to make up for that by helping other people. That's where "with great power comes great responsibility" comes in. Sandman being the killer destroys that since it DIDN'T MATTER what decision Peter made, Uncle Ben would have died either way.

No, it's still Peter's fault. He let the first robber go, thus Flint Marko sees his partner running out of the building with a successful score (because Peter let him go) and they try to steal Ben's car. The robber grabs Flints arm and sets his gun off, because Peter let the robber go.

If Peter would have stopped the robber, Ben would be alive.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by OcStat

No, it's still Peter's fault. He let the first robber go, thus Flint Marko sees his partner running out of the building with a successful score (because Peter let him go) and they try to steal Ben's car. The robber grabs Flints arm and sets his gun off, because Peter let the robber go.

If Peter would have stopped the robber, Ben would be alive.

I found that to be a complete copout. "Nonono, look! That guy pushed his hand and made his finger slip! Our idea could still work!"

Let's be realistic. It's not like they sat down and brainstormed intelligent ways to approach that part of the origin again. It's clearly obvious that this is what pretty much went down:

"I have an idea! Let's make Sandman the true killer of Uncle Ben and have Peter face him! It would create cool drama and stuff! But wait! We just realized that contradicts the idea that Peter could've prevented Ben's death. No biggie. We'll just add this quick simple explanation at the end that we thought up in the span of less than 2 minutes."

Either the message of WGPCGR doesn't exist anymore in the Raimiverse or it has been ridiculously weakened.
What sounds more powerful? This:
"I didn't stop the man who killed my uncle. I realize I should have used my powers responsibly."
Or this:
"I didn't stop the man who ran past the guy that had my uncle at gunpoint and made his finger slip. I realize I should have used my powers responsibly."

[OcStat]

I never said it was a good idea, but it's what the movie presented to us. In the last two minutes of the movie we learn it was an accident. Yeah it's all very convoluted, to absolve Sandman of any wrong doing and keep him sympathetic.

I'm not trying to defend the ret-con or anything, but anyway you slice it, if Peter would have stopped the robber, Ben would be alive. So it is still his fault, his responsibility. He had a opportunity to do the right thing and he didn't.

Would Marko still have tried to steal Ben's car, if he was waiting outside for his partner that never came?

[Loki882]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

I found that to be a complete copout. "Nonono, look! That guy pushed his hand and made his finger slip! Our idea could still work!"

Let's be realistic. It's not like they sat down and brainstormed intelligent ways to approach that part of the origin again. It's clearly obvious that this is what pretty much went down:

"I have an idea! Let's make Sandman the true killer of Uncle Ben and have Peter face him! It would create cool drama and stuff! But wait! We just realized that contradicts the idea that Peter could've prevented Ben's death. No biggie. We'll just add this quick simple explanation at the end that we thought up in the span of less than 2 minutes."

Either the message of WGPCGR doesn't exist anymore in the Raimiverse or it has been ridiculously weakened.
What sounds more powerful? This:
"I didn't stop the man who killed my uncle. I realize I should have used my powers responsibly."
Or this:
"I didn't stop the man who ran past the guy that had my uncle at gunpoint and made his finger slip. I realize I should have used my powers responsibly."

"And by use my powers responsibly, I mean murder two people in cold blood, be proud of it, and just get really lucky that they didn't actually die. Then, at the end, I make some self-righteous speech about making right choices."

[Hmarrs]

Boy and that dialogue was aweful. He sounded like he was on Crack.

"Your uncle tired to help me ...."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBETucoL6lg