Uncle Ben's Killer

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Raimi's age was only about a year older than Webb's Peter, so I always toss out the idea of Raimi's Peter being more mature because he was way older...that claim is false. One year does not make a huge difference, imo.

Its not always about age
Some guys are more mature than others of the same age
And I have always mentioned how Raimi's Peter was too goodytwoshoes and mature for a 18-20 year old
Webb's Peter is more close the teenagers we encounter everydat

There BETTER be some serious consequences in the sequel indeed if Green Goblin doesn't kill Gwen in TAS-M 2, something major better happen in the sequel by Electro's hand or by someone that will show Peter that he made a serious mistake backtracking on his promise with Stacy.

Thats the whole purpose of those words
It wouldnt make sense to have Peter abide by Stacy's final words and Gwen still dying in the end of TASM2/TASM3,it will be better and way more tragic and epic if Gwen dies at the Goblin's hands after Peter breaks Cap Stacy's promise.
It will make a great scene,him holding Gwen's corpse and Cap Stacy's final words ringing in his ears

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Ben's death was Peter's fault, and he should feel responsible for what has happened. He got in trouble for breaking the backboard and embarrassing Flash, which made Uncle Ben miss work since he had to talk to the school Principal. Then Peter forgot to go pick up Aunt May and visit Dr. Connors instead (which resulted in the creation of the Lizard as well), and she had to take the Subway home all by herself. This caused a huge fight, and Peter decided to go run out of the house and Ben followed him outside.

LOL You cant make him responsible through that chain of actions

If I jump in front of a car and get injured,you cant blame the car manufacturers in Japan,can you?

Nobody thinks 'Hey I should not break anything at school because my Uncle might get killed due to that' Thats rubbish

What peter does(Things like breaking the basket ball board,forgetting to pick his aunt up and all) are irresponsible things,and teenagers are basically just that

Uncle Ben's death was imo almost totally his fault,he was trying to wrestle a guy and was risking his life for a few hundred bucks,that too after being an old man vs a young professional thief.It was a very stupid thing to do

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by AF3619

that´s the point he could but he was angry with T-bone(lol i know his name) so he left him on his own, revenge,

in Spiderman it was clear the guy had a gun and he was dangerous,
he left the killer go away with the same reason, that the guy was a D**k to him and even if it is for 3000 or a milkshake(can´t believe i´m saying that) but it is the same action revenge

Who's T-Bone again? The store clerk?

But even what you're saying..."can't believe I'm saying that" when it comes to milk, it just seems like Peter is more of a dick and/or jerk than the store clerk ever was. At least being robbed by three grand would piss off anyone. Not getting a chocolate milk because of two cents? Wouldn't deter anyone from helping someone who was going to be robbed.

Originally Posted by TheWallCrawler

I did answer your question, but you apparently decided to ignore the rest of my post

You followed up by a question, like you're asking me. If you had to think of something to ask me, then you still couldn't really think of anything that Peter learned at the end of the film.

Originally Posted by TheWallCrawler

let's say that the Raimi version of the robber scene was tacked to TASM. Would it be better, if so, why? Answers like "because it's more like the comics" are not acceptable. There it's the same thing, the guy is a jerk and Peter doesn't get what he wants so he let's the robber go

why are you saying that TASM's Peter should've tried to do more than Raimi's Peter? Is it because a milkshake is a far smaller loss than 2900 bucks, or is it because Peter stood up to Flash so according to his character he should've helped the store clerk?

Both, really. In Spider-Man, Peter is scammed out of thousands and that is pretty much an illegal move, whereas in TAS-M, Peter can't get a chocolate milk because he doesn't have the right amount of money(so it's his problem) and when he protected another student from Flash, he instead acted like the real dick and didn't help the guy from being robbed.

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

I think he's just trying to find every excuse to bash the film in any way possible.

Oh, yah, that must be it

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

Its not always about age
Some guys are more mature than others of the same age
And I have always mentioned how Raimi's Peter was too goodytwoshoes and mature for a 18-20 year old
Webb's Peter is more close the teenagers we encounter everydat

From a guy that did the right thing twice in the film with protecting the kid from Flash and stopping Lizard, to two things he didn't do right such as stopping the robber and then backtracking on Captain Stacy's promise at the end...it just makes Webb's Peter such a nonsensical character that flip-flopped in his choices of what's right and what's wrong. And age shouldn't do that; it shouldn't make you switch from doing what's right and then doing what's wrong. I had no idea the teenagers we encounter in this day and age do this.

At least, at least, Peter Parker should have felt like he has grown while being the hero and Peter didn't in TAS-M, imo.

Thats the whole purpose of those words
It wouldnt make sense to have Peter abide by Stacy's final words and Gwen still dying in the end of TASM2/TASM3,it will be better and way more tragic and epic if Gwen dies at the Goblin's hands after Peter breaks Cap Stacy's promise.
It will make a great scene,him holding Gwen's corpse and Cap Stacy's final words ringing in his ears

What I was saying is something better happen to Gwen in TAS-M 2, though. To wait for a third will give us an entire film where Peter took back his promise and nothing happened to Gwen, which would be odd if you ask me. Her death not happening until the third would be pointless, imo.

[Schrute]

^ That's only if he does date Gwen again in #2 though. The movie could have her and Harry dating and how, even though it tears Peter apart, he is keeping his promise.

[GuestStar2004]

with how 3rd films these days tie directly to the 1st film i can't see why it would hurt to save her death till 3rd film, im sure the events in TAS will be mentioned in the sequel though

and i think they will keep to the idea that gwen only has eyes for peter tbh

[Anno_Domini]

Yah, I don't see Gwen and Harry dating. The idea of Peter now speaking to Gwen again, it just doesn't seem like Gwen would decide to date someone else. Now Harry having eyes for Gwen, that's a different story, just as long as they don't actually date.

[Schrute]

Well they did date in the comics. I think him talking to her at the end was more of him letting her know that he does still care about her. I can see it as Peter really trying to still be her friend in some regard in this next film until possibly the end.

[GuestStar2004]

there is no reason for them to be friends in next film who just care bout each other

[Schrute]

Why? if Peter is trying to keep his promise for most of the film he can still try to only be her friend, kind of like Peter and MJ in the original films.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

LOL You cant make him responsible through that chain of actions

If I jump in front of a car and get injured,you cant blame the car manufacturers in Japan,can you?

Nobody thinks 'Hey I should not break anything at school because my Uncle might get killed due to that' Thats rubbish

What peter does(Things like breaking the basket ball board,forgetting to pick his aunt up and all) are irresponsible things,and teenagers are basically just that

Uncle Ben's death was imo almost totally his fault,he was trying to wrestle a guy and was risking his life for a few hundred bucks,that too after being an old man vs a young professional thief.It was a very stupid thing to do

You're... not getting it.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Schrute

Why? if Peter is trying to keep his promise for most of the film he can still try to only be her friend, kind of like Peter and MJ in the original films.

What promise does Peter need to keep when he broke it as soon as he spoke to her?

"...those are the best kind."

[Picard Sisko]

I'm sure they won't be "just friends." The promise is already broken, and now Peter is going to learn the consequences of that. You know, by a certain bridge...

[Schrute]

Saying "But those are the best kind" doesn't exactly mean that he and Gwen are dating again

And when I say "just friends" I don't mean the traditional best friends, I mean Peter wanting to desperately be with her but knowing he can't, so he becomes a friend just like Peter was for most of Spider-Man 2

Besides, I think we all know he will break his promise in some way if they are going to do the Gwen Stacy saga anyways

[Schrute]

I just don't see why people are automatically thinking the promise is broken because he spoke to Gwen. The promise is broken when we accurately know they are dating again, which could of course be at the beginning of #2, but no one really knows that right now.

[Anno_Domini]

That last scene definitely proved something was going to happen between Peter and Gwen and breaking the promise, as he did(I wouldn't understand how anyone would disagree when he spent so long in not trying to talk to Gwen but finally does after his talk with Aunt May) and the sequel will surely not go the same route of Peter wanting to be the with girl he loves just like the last Spidey sequel we had. It will surely be different and the best bet is that Peter and Gwen will be dating.

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

From a guy that did the right thing twice in the film with protecting the kid from Flash and stopping Lizard, to two things he didn't do right such as stopping the robber and then backtracking on Captain Stacy's promise at the end...it just makes Webb's Peter such a nonsensical character that flip-flopped in his choices of what's right and what's wrong. And age shouldn't do that; it shouldn't make you switch from doing what's right and then doing what's wrong. I had no idea the teenagers we encounter in this day and age do this.

At least, at least, Peter Parker should have felt like he has grown while being the hero and Peter didn't in TAS-M, imo.

We still didnt know if he broke that promise,that one line doesnt prove anything,basically Webb did as a cliffhanger of sorts
To keep the ball in his court,he can go either way in the sequel without people raising eyebrows
So had it made sense to have Peter Parker to keep away from Gwen and then she still dies at the hands of Goblin? That would be non-sensical

And you dont get it at all,he didnt help the clerk not because he didnt get 2 cents,but because he insulted him and said something like 'Daddy didnt give you enough milk money' or something,for him the father part is a really sensitive issue and on top of that he just had a fight about it few minutes ago.It makes complete sense to ignore the robber.

What I was saying is something better happen to Gwen in TAS-M 2, though. To wait for a third will give us an entire film where Peter took back his promise and nothing happened to Gwen, which would be odd if you ask me. Her death not happening until the third would be pointless, imo.

We'll have to wait to see
Basically you are counting it as a plot hole/flaw all the while ignoring the trilogy as a whole
Some parts like the Parents angle,The promise and all are meant to be covered in the coming movies,if it isnt covered,I will call them a flaw myself

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

You're... not getting it.

Well him breaking the basket or forgetting to pick his aunt are no doubt irresponsible moves,and teenagers are mostly irresponsible

Will you count it as his fault if his Uncle dies in the course of the action when in fact it was the Uncle's fault that he tried to play hero? I certainly wouldnt

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

We still didnt know if he broke that promise,that one line doesnt prove anything,basically Webb did as a cliffhanger of sorts
To keep the ball in his court,he can go either way in the sequel without people raising eyebrows

That one line was all I need when beforehand Aunt May told him that he was good enough for any girl. That just screams that Peter decided to not keep his promise with Captain Stacy.

So had it made sense to have Peter Parker to keep away from Gwen and then she still dies at the hands of Goblin? That would be non-sensical

What's nonsensical, if you ask me, is that if Peter breaks the promise in the first film and him and Gwen are dating throughout the sequel...and Gwen doesn't even die until the threequel. I would have enjoyed some tense moments between the two and then them finally getting together at the end of TAS-M 2 and THEN she dies by Green Goblin in the third flick, but once again, I feel that the promise had been broken already and GG doesn't seem like he'll show up in the sequel.

And you dont get it at all,he didnt help the clerk not because he didnt get 2 cents,but because he insulted him and said something like 'Daddy didnt give you enough milk money' or something,for him the father part is a really sensitive issue and on top of that he just had a fight about it few minutes ago.It makes complete sense to ignore the robber.

One mention about Peter's dad does not give up the fact that Peter ended up still being the bigger jerk when he doesn't help the guy who was robbed. At least in the '02 film, the guy was literally scamming Peter who gets his money stolen...the store clerk? It's not HIS money to have been stolen.

We'll have to wait to see
Basically you are counting it as a plot hole/flaw all the while ignoring the trilogy as a whole
Some parts like the Parents angle,The promise and all are meant to be covered in the coming movies,if it isnt covered,I will call them a flaw myself

It is a plot hole and/or flaw UNTIL we see the big payoff, though. Just reasoning it out as that because we still can only speculate, good or bad, until it happens.

[Schrute]

I still just fail to see how him saying "but those are the best kind" automatically means he and Gwen will be dating at the start of TASM-2. But I guess we will see what happens, either way looking forward to it

[Fox]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

One mention about Peter's dad does not give up the fact that Peter ended up still being the bigger jerk when he doesn't help the guy who was robbed. At least in the '02 film, the guy was literally scamming Peter who gets his money stolen...the store clerk? It's not HIS money to have been stolen.

But isn't that the point? That Peter is a jerk, hence his need for the lesson of power and responsibility?

[TheWallCrawler]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Both, really. In Spider-Man, Peter is scammed out of thousands and that is pretty much an illegal move, whereas in TAS-M, Peter can't get a chocolate milk because he doesn't have the right amount of money(so it's his problem) and when he protected another student from Flash, he instead acted like the real dick and didn't help the guy from being robbed.

I'm starting to see what you mean. It's a shame that they couldn't do the wrestling thing due to being too similar

then again, I still think that this movie didn't need the origin in the first place to establish Andrew's Peter. In TSSM they got us to know Peter's character in the very first episode, and none of that character building referred to the origin. Then the movie wouldn't have had to twist every part of the origin to make itself original

[Picard Sisko]

Peter didn't get scammed in SM1 "technically." He wasn't in the ring for three minutes. Not saying he shouldn't have gotten any money, but technically he was wrong.

[Picard Sisko]

The whole point is that Peter didn't stop the robber when he had the power to do so, and later finding out his uncle was killed by that same man. Out of selfishness, he decided not to do the right thing, and had to face the consequences. At some point, even if the robber didn't bump into his Uncle Ben, he would have probably continued to rob other stores and commit more crimes. Peter SHOULD have stopped him in the store. And once again, it resulted in the death of his Uncle. End of story. I do kind of wish there was a wrestling scene, but then even more people would be calling TASM a rip-off of SM1.

[GuestStar2004]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

What's nonsensical, if you ask me, is that if Peter breaks the promise in the first film and him and Gwen are dating throughout the sequel...and Gwen doesn't even die until the threequel. I would have enjoyed some tense moments between the two and then them finally getting together at the end of TAS-M 2

so almost a repeat of raimi's spiderman 1 and 2

peter told mary jane he couldnt be with her in sm1 and then got with her at the end of sm2

i know many wouldn't mind if they did things similar but TAS got enough criticism for being similar too already

[GuestStar2004]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

The whole point is that Peter didn't stop the robber when he had the power to do so, and later finding out his uncle was killed by that same man. Out of selfishness, he decided not to do the right thing, and had to face the consequences. At some point, even if the robber didn't bump into his Uncle Ben, he would have probably continued to rob other stores and commit more crimes. Peter SHOULD have stopped him in the store. And once again, it resulted in the death of his Uncle. End of story. I do kind of wish there was a wrestling scene, but then even more people would be calling TASM a rip-off of SM1.

from the way i see it peter had a bad night, he is confused and hurt over his parents, just had a arguement with uncle ben which didn't help, then the store clerk was a jerk so when the robber took the money peter just thought its his problem that jerk can deal with it

peter didn't know he had a gun and maybe part of the reason he wants revenge so bad is because he is not only angry at the robber but also angry at himself