Brazillian magazine puts in question if Sandman killed Ben...

[Mr Jide]

Quoting Revolver Ocelot eh? I love Metal Gear Solid too.

 

[Mr Jide]

Actually Brazil produces more missionaries than any other country in the world.

Is there some sort of sexual innuendo hidden in there because that's where I was heading...missionary perhaps?

 

[ultimatefan]

You people are still doing this? Instead of being so ridiculously stubborn in the face of the obvious, maybe you should devote some of your energy to opening your minds and considering that there's A CHANCE that the story might actually be constructed in such a way that Marko shooting Ben might work.

Again, just saying what the magazine printed, don´t shoot the messenger.

 

[Dragon]

Again, just saying what the magazine printed, don´t shoot the messenger.

I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm just asking why this is even an issue any longer. This isn't anymore a spoiler than Peter getting the black suit. It's not a plot twist. It's not a surprise ending. It's a plot point. An event that sets things in motion.

and if anything, the "things might not be what they seem" is just coming from one of the earlier articles published here.

 

[Cristo]

I still don't believe Sandman killed Uncle Ben.

Novels aren't always faithful, and to me, that's nearly as bad as when we saw the trailer, it said:

"We have some new information. Your aunt may have been infected by a dangerous parasite. She's been causing carnage for the past few days."

If they said that in the trailer, I'd be like WTF?!? Which is why when they said "We've found your uncle's actual killer.", I was like WTF?!?

It may SOUND good and it may tie up a few character arcs with forgiveness etc., but that doesn't mean it IS good...and I think Raimi knows that.

We even had a WHOLE TOPIC devoted to the subject with a lot of people putting in their two cents. Raimi might have left the "real" plot twist out of the novel to piss some fans off, but it had the opposite effect. People instead decided to kiss ass no matter WHAT was in the movie (unless their BELOVED VENOM turned to bones) and accept this stupid anticlimactic plot twist as Gospel. I think the movie will be quite different. Raimi wouldn't have Sandman be a throwaway villain and, if it's done like the novel, that's exactly what he will be.

Matter of fact, they can get EVERYTHING ELSE RIGHT, but this movie would suck if Sandman was Uncle Ben's killer.

It's like "we're giving you a quality Spidey film but, GUESS WHAT?!? Aunt May IS Carnage."

 

[Naite22]

I dont know how they would pull it off in the movie!... BUT, if Flint Marko DIDN'T kill Ben, and this is revealed in the end, then that rather "beautiful" scene explained in the novelization totaly falls to the ground! In the book, Peter forgives him in the end, saying the classy line "We've all done terrible things... I forgive you" (wasn't that it?)... then Flint walks away with his family, and spidey and venom dugs it out!!!... if that's not in the movie (and Sam will take us all by surprise), then how the heck will it then end??? How will it then end in the film between Spidey and Flint (if it's not like in the book)??

 

[Cristo]

BUT, if Flint Marko DIDN'T kill Ben, and this is revealed in the end, then that rather "beautiful" scene explained in the novelization totaly falls to the ground! In the book, Peter forgives him in the end, saying the classy line "We've all done terrible things... I forgive you" (wasn't that it?)... then Flint walks away with his family, and spidey and venom dugs it out!!!... if that's not in the movie (and Sam will take us all by surprise), then how the heck will it then end??? How will it then end in the film between Spidey and Flint (if it's not like in the book)??

Which is always because MJ's the one who says that in the commercial...But nvm.

I could see the same thing happening with Sandman and Spidey duking it out. Except Sandman says that he didn't kill Uncle Ben in the same way that the novel implies he did. Spider-Man realizes how much the symbiote had affected his life.

Or maybe he finds AFTER he allegedly killed Sandman that Sandman WASN'T the real killer...and that's one of the things that causes him to rid himself of the suit.

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe at the battle royale...Sandman forgives him for trying to kill him because he realizes that he was thought to be Uncle Ben's killer and that's why Spidey acted the way he did.

Either way these are all just a bunch of "maybes". But, I think that Sandman did not kill Uncle Ben. I know people are going to think I'm an idiot for that.

But the only possible idiots come May 4th are...all the naysayers who said Sandman had to have killed Uncle Ben OR Sam Raimi and Alvin Sargent for coming up with such a dreadful plot point.

 

[Eddie Brock]

You know, originally I was enraged. I argued, "This completely messes up everything...now Peter isn't responsible for Uncle Ben's death! His whole reason for going on is completely shot!"

But now, I frankly don't care. It's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Or maybe I've just been tamed....hopefully not.

 

[Virus276]

Is there some sort of sexual innuendo hidden in there because that's where I was heading...missionary perhaps?

Actually sir I am a preacher and I was referring to Christian missionaries.

 

[Cristo]

[Or maybe I've just been tamed....hopefully not.

You've been tamed.

 

[Pimpjuice16]

i still dont understand or see how he is involved with uncle ben's death.

 

[Dragon]

You know, originally I was enraged. I argued, "This completely messes up everything...now Peter isn't responsible for Uncle Ben's death! His whole reason for going on is completely shot!"

He is responsible. Who the pulled trigger is immaterial. There was a crime that Peter didn't stop, and Ben paid the price. If Peter had stopped the burglar, Marko wouldn't have needed to steal Ben's car.

 

[vegeta21]

He is responsible. Who the pulled trigger is immaterial. There was a crime that Peter didn't stop, and Ben paid the price. If Peter had stopped the burglar, Marko wouldn't have needed to steal Ben's car.

Well if you put it that way, I guess I'll reduce my face punching to 1 and a half hour.

 

[Mr Jide]

You know, originally I was enraged. I argued, "This completely messes up everything...now Peter isn't responsible for Uncle Ben's death! His whole reason for going on is completely shot!"

But now, I frankly don't care. It's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Or maybe I've just been tamed....hopefully not.

Well, had Peter actually gone to the library like he said he was going to, Benny boy may still be alive.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

He is responsible. Who the pulled trigger is immaterial. There was a crime that Peter didn't stop, and Ben paid the price. If Peter had stopped the burglar, Marko wouldn't have needed to steal Ben's car.

which is why peter lerned that with great power come's great responsibility. so no matter who it was that shot Uncle Ben, peter should have stoped the burglar so that his uncle wouldn't get shot. Marko

Spoiler

didn't want to shoot uncle ben, but he did accidently

and that is because of the Burglar escaping.

 

[Naite22]

Which is always because MJ's the one who says that in the commercial...But nvm.

I could see the same thing happening with Sandman and Spidey duking it out. Except Sandman says that he didn't kill Uncle Ben in the same way that the novel implies he did. Spider-Man realizes how much the symbiote had affected his life.

Or maybe he finds AFTER he allegedly killed Sandman that Sandman WASN'T the real killer...and that's one of the things that causes him to rid himself of the suit.

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe at the battle royale...Sandman forgives him for trying to kill him because he realizes that he was thought to be Uncle Ben's killer and that's why Spidey acted the way he did.

Either way these are all just a bunch of "maybes". But, I think that Sandman did not kill Uncle Ben. I know people are going to think I'm an idiot for that.

But the only possible idiots come May 4th are...all the naysayers who said Sandman had to have killed Uncle Ben OR Sam Raimi and Alvin Sargent for coming up with such a dreadful plot point.

I think you could be right. I've been having the same thoughts my self!...

There could be great symbolism in having BLACK Spidey go after Flint Marko with an UNcontrolable vengense in his heart! The same way that Harry goes after Peter with the exact same struggle within him! Now IF Flint didn't kill Uncle Ben, it's the same thing as Peter didn't kill Norman! and those to subjects can bare a GREAT purpose in the film! Peter is asking Harry for forgivness on something that he didn't do; as do Flint ask for forgiveness from Peter for not killing Ben... Peter needs to realize that forgiveness goes both ways. Harry forgives Peter in the end AFTER the madness has left him and his mind is clear enough to realize the truth (about his father)!... and Just like Spidey was in no place to forgive Flint Marko when he was under the influence of the black suit, he too must realize the truth in the end, ones the "madness" has left HIM!

This could actually work even better than how it ends up in the novelization!

 

[Cristo]

There could be great symbolism in having BLACK Spidey go after Flint Marko with an UNcontrolable vengense in his heart! The same way that Harry goes after Peter with the exact same struggle within him! Now IF Flint didn't kill Uncle Ben, it's the same thing as Peter didn't kill Norman! and those to subjects can bare a GREAT purpose in the film! Peter is asking Harry for forgivness on something that he didn't do; as do Flint ask for forgiveness from Peter for not killing Ben... Peter needs to realize that forgiveness goes both ways. Harry forgives Peter in the end AFTER the madness has left him and his mind is clear enough to realize the truth (about his father)!... and Just like Spidey was in no place to forgive Flint Marko when he was under the influence of the black suit, he too must realize the truth in the end, ones the "madness" has left HIM!

This could actually work even better than how it ends up in the novelization!

Exactly! That's the route I think Raimi and Sargent will do.

When you look at it from that perspective, none of the drama from the first movie is lost...AND it ties in to the established themes, as well as being even better than the novelization.

In fact, the novelization's conclusion to the plot point is very sloppy and poor compared to the possible alternative. It would be even more dramatic than Peter saying "I forgive you" and Sandman just going off with his family. It would reflect Peter and Harry's relationship and give Sandman some meaning (since, in that light, he never killed anybody to begin with!)

Also, to all you naysayers saying that Peter would still be responsible for Uncle Ben's death, it's clearly in the novel that Peter REALIZED that he was NOT responsible for Uncle Ben's death after hearing that Flint Marko was the "real killer".

I trust Raimi. I don't think he would do something like that. But...maybe I'm overestimating him. I hope not.

 

[Dragon]

I think you could be right. I've been having the same thoughts my self!...

There could be great symbolism in having BLACK Spidey go after Flint Marko with an UNcontrolable vengense in his heart! The same way that Harry goes after Peter with the exact same struggle within him! Now IF Flint didn't kill Uncle Ben, it's the same thing as Peter didn't kill Norman! and those to subjects can bare a GREAT purpose in the film! Peter is asking Harry for forgivness on something that he didn't do; as do Flint ask for forgiveness from Peter for not killing Ben... Peter needs to realize that forgiveness goes both ways. Harry forgives Peter in the end AFTER the madness has left him and his mind is clear enough to realize the truth (about his father)!... and Just like Spidey was in no place to forgive Flint Marko when he was under the influence of the black suit, he too must realize the truth in the end, ones the "madness" has left HIM!

This could actually work even better than how it ends up in the novelization!

That's ridiculous. If Marko didn't kill Ben- Why the hell would he be seeking Peter's forgiveness? Who seeks forgiveness for something they didn't do? A man like Marko has too much to deal with to be trying to win Peter over if he's innocent.

And no, it isn't the same as with Harry. Peter isn't seeking forgiveness from Harry. He's trying to convince Harry of THE TRUTH of his innocence because he wants his friend- his brother- back. Not the even in the ballpark of Peter and Marko's "relationship".

If Marko were innocent, there's no lesson to be learned by Peter. He already knows that taking vengeance against someone innocent is wrong. But Peter needs to learn forgiveness of the guilty as well. The parallel is in the comics with Norman Osborn. After Gwen's death, Peter hunted Norman down, with RIGHTEOUS Vengeance in his heart. No one would've blamed him for killing the man who murdered the woman he loved. But Peter had to learn to take the higher road and not kill Norman. That runs parallel with Great Power & Resposibility. His powers were granted to him to use as tools of revenge. That's likely why Raimi made Sandman Ben's killer. So that he could deal with Peter at the level of rage he was at in ASM #122.

This is also the reason Sandman is being made so sympathetic. The audience would have trouble accepting Peter forgiving a cold-blooded killer for Ben's murder. But a man trying to save his daughter's life, killing only in the heat of the moment is more forgiveable.

 

[Buford The Sly]

Loud Noises!

 

[Cristo]

That's ridiculous. If Marko didn't kill Ben- Why the hell would he be seeking Peter's forgiveness? Who seeks forgiveness for something they didn't do? A man like Marko has too much to deal with to be trying to win Peter over if he's innocent.

And no, it isn't the same as with Harry. Peter isn't seeking forgiveness from Harry. He's trying to convince Harry of THE TRUTH of his innocence because he wants his friend- his brother- back. Not the even in the ballpark of Peter and Marko's "relationship".

If Marko were innocent, there's no lesson to be learned by Peter. He already knows that taking vengeance against someone innocent is wrong. But Peter needs to learn forgiveness of the guilty as well. The parallel is in the comics with Norman Osborn. After Gwen's death, Peter hunted Norman down, with RIGHTEOUS Vengeance in his heart. No one would've blamed him for killing the man who murdered the woman he loved. But Peter had to learn to take the higher road and not kill Norman. That runs parallel with Great Power & Resposibility. His powers were granted to him to use as tools of revenge. That's likely why Raimi made Sandman Ben's killer. So that he could deal with Peter at the level of rage he was at in ASM #122.

This is also the reason Sandman is being made so sympathetic. The audience would have trouble accepting Peter forgiving a cold-blooded killer for Ben's murder. But a man trying to save his daughter's life, killing only in the heat of the moment is more forgiveable.

That's not what Uncle Ben's death MEANS, though.

Peter has a huge lesson to learn if Sandman isn't the killer because he practically tried to kill somebody who wasn't responsible. It resembles Harry's thirst for revenge against Peter, even though Peter did nothing wrong.

Parker learns that revenge "can turn you into something ugly". Flint FORGIVES Peter by not fighting him anymore, instead of Peter forgiving Flint. And, also, in the novel after Peter thinks he killed Sandman, Aunt May chews him out about it and gives him the "Revenge" speech, so he learned his lesson about that as well.

Peter IS responsible for Uncle Ben's death, but this plot point would disregard that: the driving factor for Spider-Man. Sandman has a daughter because, at the end of the day, Sandman may have done some bad things in the past BUT he is a sympathetic person and he is DEFINITELY not a killer. He even doesn't want innocent bystanders to be shot when the POLICE ARE SHOOTING HIM. So, what makes you think he'd point a gun at a harmless old man, let alone shoot him? Uncle Ben's death was not an accident. The carjacker shot his Uncle Ben because Peter let him get away, and that's a burden Peter carries throughout his battles as Spider-Man.

Any person who likes Spider-Man should be able to see that. And this "twist" would be the perfect parallel to Harry's anger towards Peter.

In fact, any person who likes Spider-Man SHOULD be angry if the movie goes that route, instead of accepting it passively.

That's like saying Aunt May is Carnage, but Spider-Man learns "not to hurt his family members" by not attacking Carnage and this parallels to comic number such-and-such when Aunt May was about to marry Doc Ock and Spidey didn't stop Aunt May because he had to learn "not to hurt your family members".

Why, if Aunt May wasn't Carnage, Peter Parker wouldn't learn a damn thing!

 

[The Joker]

That's ridiculous. If Marko didn't kill Ben- Why the hell would he be seeking Peter's forgiveness? Who seeks forgiveness for something they didn't do? A man like Marko has too much to deal with to be trying to win Peter over if he's innocent.

And no, it isn't the same as with Harry. Peter isn't seeking forgiveness from Harry. He's trying to convince Harry of THE TRUTH of his innocence because he wants his friend- his brother- back. Not the even in the ballpark of Peter and Marko's "relationship".

If Marko were innocent, there's no lesson to be learned by Peter. He already knows that taking vengeance against someone innocent is wrong. But Peter needs to learn forgiveness of the guilty as well. The parallel is in the comics with Norman Osborn. After Gwen's death, Peter hunted Norman down, with RIGHTEOUS Vengeance in his heart. No one would've blamed him for killing the man who murdered the woman he loved. But Peter had to learn to take the higher road and not kill Norman. That runs parallel with Great Power & Resposibility. His powers were granted to him to use as tools of revenge. That's likely why Raimi made Sandman Ben's killer. So that he could deal with Peter at the level of rage he was at in ASM #122.

This is also the reason Sandman is being made so sympathetic. The audience would have trouble accepting Peter forgiving a cold-blooded killer for Ben's murder. But a man trying to save his daughter's life, killing only in the heat of the moment is more forgiveable.

Exactly

It's UNREAL how many people are still in denial over this. May 4th can't come quick enough. Finally stop all this nonsense.

 

[Cristo]

Ah, shut up, Doc Ock.

Would you so passively accept Aunt May being Carnage or Harry Osborn turning into Venom?

This is as BAD, if not worse, than those pathetic plot points.

I don't have time for this. Like somebody else said, you guys are "tamed"...conditioned to accept anything you're fed. When Spidey 3 comes out, we shall see who the bigger idiots are...you suck-ups or the filmmakers.

 

[Eddie Brock]

Either way, it doesn't upset me anymore.

 

[The Joker]

Ah, shut up, Doc Ock.

You first, troll

Would you so passively accept Aunt May being Carnage or Harry Osborn turning into Venom?

This is as BAD, if not worse, than those pathetic plot points.

And what ridiculous logic are you using to come up with that nonsense?? As Dragon already said, Sandman pulling the trigger doesn't change the fact that Peter failing to stop the criminal in the office caused Ben's death.

If his partner had been stopped, Marko would have left and not needed a getaway car.

I don't have time for this.

Then by all means leave.

Your arrogance and hostility will not be missed.

 

[Dragon]

That's not what Uncle Ben's death MEANS, though.

Ben's death taught Peter about responsibility, which we saw in Spidey 1. The lesson Peter learns in Spidey 3 is more complex. A NEW level of responsibility- that even though he might be right, it's more important that he's JUST. This lesson can only be learned if Sandman is guilty.

Peter has a huge lesson to learn if Sandman isn't the killer because he practically tried to kill somebody who wasn't responsible. It resembles Harry's thirst for revenge against Peter, even though Peter did nothing wrong.

That's no lesson at all. Peter knows that he shouldn't go hurt innocent people.

Parker learns that revenge "can turn you into something ugly".

Exactly. And this can only happen if he's going after someone who's actually guilty. If he goes after someone who's innocent, what does he learn?

Not to hurt the wrong people? Not to trust info from the police? Not to wear alien costumes?

Flint FORGIVES Peter by not fighting him anymore, instead of Peter forgiving Flint.

What are you basing this on? In every scene shown, and in the novel, Sandman does his best to put Spidey's lights out. Hardly a gesture of forgiveness.

And, also, in the novel after Peter thinks he killed Sandman, Aunt May chews him out about it and gives him the "Revenge" speech, so he learned his lesson about that as well.

EXACTLY. He learns the lesson that Revenge is WRONG- Even if the person you're after is GUILTY.

Peter IS responsible for Uncle Ben's death, but this plot point would disregard that: the driving factor for Spider-Man.

It doesn't disregard it in anyway. AGAIN- Peter lets a criminal go free- and because of that- BEN DIES. Who pulled the trigger doesn't matter. Peter's vain inaction is what leads to Ben's death.

Sandman has a daughter because, at the end of the day, Sandman may have done some bad things in the past BUT he is a sympathetic person and he is DEFINITELY not a killer.

That's where you're wrong. A person who kills can still be sympathetic. That's why there are different levels of criminality when it comes to killings. There's First degree, Second degree, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide- There can be mitigating circumstances. And that's what Peter learns- It isn't always black and white. There are shades of gray. That's something a number of folks here need to realize as well.

He even doesn't want innocent bystanders to be shot when the POLICE ARE SHOOTING HIM. So, what makes you think he'd point a gun at a harmless old man, let alone shoot him? Uncle Ben's death was not an accident.

So you're saying there's no such thing as accidental shootings? Marko points the gun at Ben to scare him- and Marko himself is scared. They struggle and the gun goes off accidentally.

The carjacker shot his Uncle Ben because Peter let him get away, and that's a burden Peter carries throughout his battles as Spider-Man.

Obviously not. Marko shot Ben because Peter let the carjacker/burglar/whatever get away. No robbery means no carjacking- which means Ben lives. That simple.

Any person who likes Spider-Man should be able to see that. And this "twist" would be the perfect parallel to Harry's anger towards Peter.

No it isn't, because its not a twist. Harry has his own agenda which continues after Peter has defeated Sandman. There's never a point where Peter is in a position to harm Sandman- when he becomes aware of any parallel with Harry. When Peter and Sandman have their FINAL confrontation Harry has forgiven Peter, and Peter is somewhat at Sandman's mercy. So Peter suddenly realizing some parallel with Harry's anger is moot.

In fact, any person who likes Spider-Man SHOULD be angry if the movie goes that route, instead of accepting it passively.

That's like saying Aunt May is Carnage, but Spider-Man learns "not to hurt his family members" by not attacking Carnage and this parallels to comic number such-and-such when Aunt May was about to marry Doc Ock and Spidey didn't stop Aunt May because he had to learn "not to hurt your family members".

Why, if Aunt May wasn't Carnage, Peter Parker wouldn't learn a damn thing!

Dude, the fact that you equate a gun-toting criminal, albeit with a heart of gold, shooting someone with said gun, to Aunt May being Carnage already reflects your extreme position on the matter. And many of the points you raise reflect that you haven't looked at this scenario from all the angles. You're starting from the point of some perceived bastardization of Spidey's origin because one character as opposed to another pulled the trigger in Ben's death, without realizing that it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger. Only what Peter did and did not do.

Sam Raimi is a skilled storyteller. Again- maybe if you opened your mind to the possibility that he thought this through before committing millions of dollars to this enterprise you might actually be able to enjoy this film. If not, that's your choice.