Did Peter (technically) kill Brock?

[November Rain]

You can't have it both ways. If it could go into hiding, then it didn't have to bond with someone. But there's little doubt that it read Eddie's rage and bonded with him. Plain and simple- the only people the symbiote bonded with -WANTED SOMEONE DEAD.

Well one could warrant that it requires bonding during hard times, such as in pain for example, you saw once separated, the symbiote had a lot harder time with dealing with the noise, both when coming off parker and off eddie. I'm willing to go with that as an explanation.

it was merely convinient that eddie was right below the bell when the symbiote came down to him, nothing really more than that.

Well, if you want to interpret it that way, fine. Bottomline is that the symbiote- as explained, feeds on aggression, and Eddie had a' plenty.

well to be fair, i don't think there is any other way to interpret it within the film universe, otherwise you are looking for outside reasoning from the comics to explain the events and we all know you can't go about things like that.

besides, feeding off agression is not a crime of the being, its goals were merely to find a host, what the host does with the symbiote is entirely up to them and thus they need to be accounted for their actions rather than completely blaming the suit which might be harmless in the hands of someoene with a pure heart.

No. Peter saved Eddie once. He couldn't be made to be responsible for Eddie's stupidity. Peter got himself away from the symbiote and didn't want to go back to it. He probably figured Eddie would too. Anyway, he didn't have time to worry about Eddie's nuttiness. The symbiote was about to strike again, and he had to focus on stopping it.

I didn't realise there was a quota on the number of times a hero could save someone's life, surely mj has used hers all up by this film?


pete got himself away? Peter was running towards the explosion when it was about to go off? Not only this, he left eddie closer to the explosion than he was when he threw the bomb. He didn't go through the proper proceedings to make sure not only a human being but potentially someone who still wanted him dead, was sufficiently no longer a menace but out of harm's way before he acted.

also, the symbiote wasn't about to strike again, we clearly see parker hits the pipes subduing the symbiote before he decides to throw a bomb at it. At the time he acted, it wasn't dangerous.

Okay. I just watched it again this weekend. So I can tell you that as the sequence played out, there was no way Peter could've done anything to save Eddie.

Peter tossed the bomb.

As it was inflight, Eddie jumps at the symbiote.

The bomb makes contact with the symbiote.

Peter sees Eddie making contact with the symbiote.

Peter starts to run to help Eddie, and the bomb explodes.

And one more note- when Eddie jumps at the symbiote- The symbiote GRABS EDDIE with its tendrils. So Peter wouldn't have been able to yank Eddie free in time anyway.

huh? Why bother running in the direction of the explosion, don't you think peter made the wrong decision and didn't either try to either

web push the bomb away
protect brock with a web nest
web and yank
again just like harry did, throw himself infront of the innocent victim to protect him

but instead he makes this idol run which has no real intention of doing anything and wastes time shouting eddie's name. he doesn't even listen to eddie shouting at him before he throws it.

Based on alot of your posts, you really seem to think Peter is supposed to be capable of miracles. He's supposed to web Eddie up even though he still has to fight the symbiote. He's supposed to grab every bit of falling debris.

Heh, there is a difference between trying to save someone and failing and not trying at all.

there are plenty of times when parker in this films doesn't even bother trying

that's what makes spidey for me, always wanting to do things and make a difference and alot of the times he cant and he feels responsible for it. Not just going '**** it' and letting sleeping dogs lie.

with the falling debris incident, why spend that time saving one person's life when there are a dozen people in an office, still in danger of making the same fall, and plenty of innocent bystanders also on the verge of getting trounced by large falling skyscraper and sharp glass?

You're a logical person, which one makes sense to you?

Based on Gwen's death- we know that Peter isn't INFALLIBLE. In fact, that was the whole point of Spider-Man. A hero with flaws who fails. If Peter had the kind of speed you're requiring, he'd never be hit. Peter has faster reaction times than most, but he still has to think in a complex situation and strategize. Not to mention that in the Final battle he's gone through alot- nearly being KILLED by Sandman's attack- trying to protect the woman he (for some reason) loves- and he'd just seen his best friend mortally wounded.

pete was in no way near death in this film, sandman wasnt going to kill him, he showed no signs of fatigue after the pounding, he was fine up to that point and continued fighting without any real discomfort.

You actually think he's supposed to be thinking ahead of every possible scenario? Eddie chose his fate just like Norman (Should Peter have saved him too?) and Ock (Should Peter have dived into the water and saved him also?)
He's Spider-Man, not God.

YOu mention spidey being fallible and making mistakes in the comics,

look how they are dealt with in the comics, he reflects on them and they haunt him, you know he is affected by them.

If he was affected by his decisions in this film then that would be another matter but he feels nothing about disposing of a deadly symbiote at a busy church and nothing about letting an innocent man influenced by a alien species die, nothing about killing another sentient lifeform and nothing about letting a wanted man who has broken the law several times and endangered the lifes of others go free.

it's not about wanting a god spiderman, it's about having a film that realistically deals with the consequences of one's actions. Just like the comics did way back in amazing fantasy 14 when a young boy learnt, with great power comes great responsibility.

 

[November Rain]

No Peter didn't. And Eddie could have MOVED AWAY from the blast like a sane person. HE CHOSE to dive into it Then the symbiote grabs Eddie, so Peter couldn't have pulled him clear.

And guess what? Eddie just killed his best friend- tried to kill his girlfriend and tried to kill him- Because Eddie lost his job for doing something illegal. Why should Peter be shedding tears for that jerk anyway? Peter tried to save him and he didn't want to be saved.
It's crazy how some of you are making like Peter needs to kill himself to save a murderer. None of YOU would.

I don't get why you call venom a murderer when harry effectively did what eddie did, yet pete is being called blameless.

harry's and eddies actions and fate mirror each other, they both died trying to save the life of another. ALthough one had selfless actions and the other had selfish intentions, this doesnt mean you can categorise their deaths differently.

its not like eddie intended on killing harry, similar to how parker didn't intend on killing eddie.

 

[November Rain]

I said it before and I'll say it again, your logic makes no sense. My opinion still stands.

I can back up my claims with clips from the film as well as real world reasoning where manslaughter acts and sentences have been giving due to people being seen to be negligent when it comes to the safety of others.

you'll have to excuse me if i don't see the lack of logic. If you have any problems with my posts, bring them to my attention and i'll take you through them, i don't think i'm saying anything too complicated or far-fetched.

 

[Dragon]

Well one could warrant that it requires bonding during hard times, such as in pain for example, you saw once separated, the symbiote had a lot harder time with dealing with the noise, both when coming off parker and off eddie. I'm willing to go with that as an explanation.

it was merely convinient that eddie was right below the bell when the symbiote came down to him, nothing really more than that.

Your theory is flawed, in that during the final battle it was in pain yet it didn't seek out anyone to bond with. It could have run off. But it stayed there, trying to attack Peter.

besides, feeding off agression is not a crime of the being, its goals were merely to find a host, what the host does with the symbiote is entirely up to them and thus they need to be accounted for their actions rather than completely blaming the suit which might be harmless in the hands of someoene with a pure heart.

The symbiote CLEARLY fuels the person's aggression, pushing them farther than they would go on their own. That's made blatantly clear in the film. And it only attacked Peter when he was enraged and ready to kill. It had been in his apartment for several days and didn't make a move until that point.

I didn't realise there was a quota on the number of times a hero could save someone's life, surely mj has used hers all up by this film?

Well, as far as I'm concerned she has, but that's another discussion. But yes, if the person the hero saved keeps placing themselves in danger (As opposed to MJ who was forced into her situation) then they don't want to be saved and deserve their fate.

pete got himself away?

When I said he got himself away, I meant in the clock tower. He freed himself of the symbiote and thought or hoped that Eddie would be too.

Peter was running towards the explosion when it was about to go off? Not only this, he left eddie closer to the explosion than he was when he threw the bomb.

Eddie wasn't paralyzed. He could have run.

He didn't go through the proper proceedings to make sure not only a human being but potentially someone who still wanted him dead, was sufficiently no longer a menace but out of harm's way before he acted.

So.. What do you think there is- a list of procedures handed out to superheroes for dealing with alien beings who bond with humans that have serious self-esteem issues? Peter was in a tense situation, winging it. Not knowing if the symbiote could be stopped- worried that his best friend was dying alone on the cold cement. Your desire for Peter to make a cold-calculated response to every action by every person or thing in the vicinity is bit much I think.

also, the symbiote wasn't about to strike again, we clearly see parker hits the pipes subduing the symbiote before he decides to throw a bomb at it. At the time he acted, it wasn't dangerous.

Oh please. The reason Peter hits the pipes is BECAUSE it was going to attack. And he knew the effect wasn't going to last.

huh? Why bother running in the direction of the explosion, don't you think peter made the wrong decision and didn't either try to either-

web push the bomb away

Webline isn't faster than an explosion.

protect brock with a web nest
web and yank

The symbiote had Eddie it's its grip. you saw how hard Peter had to pull to yank Eddie free. No time for that.

again just like harry did, throw himself infront of the innocent victim to protect him

WHAT innocent victim? The guy who just killed Peter's best friend? Would you risk your life for someone who had killed your best friend? And please answer this.

but instead he makes this idol run which has no real intention of doing anything and wastes time shouting eddie's name. he doesn't even listen to eddie shouting at him before he throws it.

He was going to try to save him. He didn't make it. It's still Eddie's fault. And of course- he's going to waste more time LISTENING TO A RAVING LUNATIC.

Heh, there is a difference between trying to save someone and failing and not trying at all.

He did try, he just didn't have time. And Gwen was killed by someone else. Eddie- AGAIN- chose to put himself in jeopardy.

there are plenty of times when parker in this films doesn't even bother trying

that's what makes spidey for me, always wanting to do things and make a difference and alot of the times he cant and he feels responsible for it. Not just going '**** it' and letting sleeping dogs lie.

You can see by Peter's expression and that he lingers (Even though Harry is dying) he's sad over Eddie's death. Not guilty, just sad.

with the falling debris incident, why spend that time saving one person's life when there are a dozen people in an office, still in danger of making the same fall, and plenty of innocent bystanders also on the verge of getting trounced by large falling skyscraper and sharp glass?

Did you really say that? so if you can only save one life- you'll let them die because you can't save EVERYONE?

Anyway- The people in the office and those on the ground still had a chance to get out of the way on their own. Gwen's death was certain. And Peter had enough difficulty getting to her, let alone stopping EVERY FALLING OBJECT.

In such a situation, would you wait for someone to save you or get busy and save yourself?

You're a logical person, which one makes sense to you?
pete was in no way near death in this film, sandman wasnt going to kill him, he showed no signs of fatigue after the pounding, he was fine up to that point and continued fighting without any real discomfort.

When Sandman is pounding him and Peter's hand drops- HE'S DYING. One more blow and he's dead. Only his healing ability and Harry's intervention saved him. And when Eddie is wailing on him he wasn't in too good a shape either, as he couldn't even move to avoid Eddie's attack with the glider.

YOu mention spidey being fallible and making mistakes in the comics,

look how they are dealt with in the comics, he reflects on them and they haunt him, you know he is affected by them.

Of course he's going to be more affected by an innocent person being killed for loving him, then some murderous thug who makes the wrong choice.

If he was affected by his decisions in this film then that would be another matter but he feels nothing about disposing of a deadly symbiote at a busy church and nothing about letting an innocent man influenced by a alien species die, nothing about killing another sentient lifeform and nothing about letting a wanted man who has broken the law several times and endangered the lifes of others go free.

Hang on- you're contradicting yourself. At one point you refer to the symbiote as DEADLY, then wonder why Peter would kill it. And obviously after freeing himslef of the symbiote he's completely taxed. You see him on the floor trying to recover. And Eddie is FAR from innocent. He placed numerous innocnet people in danger- AGAIN- Killed Harry while showing no remorse- was going to kill Peter andyet Peter DID try to save him. Peter didn't push Eddie back toward the symbiote. EDDIE JUMPED.

As for Marko- Peter could've continued fighting him while Harry- who saved his life- was dying. Or he could forgive Marko for something Marko didn't mean to do and deal with all of this another day, so he could help his friend. what choice would you make?

it's not about wanting a god spiderman, it's about having a film that realistically deals with the consequences of one's actions. Just like the comics did way back in amazing fantasy 14 when a young boy learnt, with great power comes great responsibility.

That's Amazing Fantasy #15- And there's a vast difference. Peter shirked his duty, consciously deciding not to do the right thing. You're criticizing him for not being ABLE to do things.

 

[Dragon]

I don't get why you call venom a murderer when harry effectively did what eddie did, yet pete is being called blameless.

harry's and eddies actions and fate mirror each other, they both died trying to save the life of another. ALthough one had selfless actions and the other had selfish intentions, this doesnt mean you can categorise their deaths differently.

its not like eddie intended on killing harry, similar to how parker didn't intend on killing eddie.

So, a gunman who kills an innocent bystander isn't really guilty of that either?
Eddie's intent WAS TO MURDER. That he killed someone other than his target doesn't change anything. Peter's actions were to protect further innocents from the symbiote and Eddie's desire to destroy. So yes, he's blameless.

And Eddie's motive wasn't to save the symbiote for the reason's Harry saved Peter. He wanted to preserve his source of power so he could continue his destructive whims. His motives were WRONG. Harry's were right.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

I think given the explanation the symbiote genetically bonded with Brock and had some of it escape during the explosion, it could be possible to bring the character back, but they'll need to find an exceptional writer to make it stick.

So, a gunman who kills an innocent bystander isn't really guilty of that either?
Eddie's intent WAS TO MURDER. That he killed someone other than his target doesn't change anything. Peter's actions were to protect further innocents from the symbiote and Eddie's desire to destroy. So yes, he's blameless.

And Eddie's motive wasn't to save the symbiote for the reason's Harry saved Peter. He wanted to preserve his source of power so he could continue his destructive whims. His motives were WRONG. Harry's were right.

If they were to bring Eddie Brock back, they could explore this from SM3, like maybe this could be the catalyst for Eddie developing that odd sense of justice where he only kills, albeit unwillingly, if anyone gets in the way of his revenge against Peter Parker for ruining his life. It would also be nifty if Eddie dwelled on what happened to Harry and how it shamed him to inadvertantly kill him like he did.

 

[LordSimen]

I can back up my claims with clips from the film as well as real world reasoning where manslaughter acts and sentences have been giving due to people being seen to be negligent when it comes to the safety of others.

you'll have to excuse me if i don't see the lack of logic. If you have any problems with my posts, bring them to my attention and i'll take you through them, i don't think i'm saying anything too complicated or far-fetched.

You lost me when you started arguing that Peter murdered the simbiote. For one, destroying the simbiote was an act of self defense. For two, the simbiote attack him and Brock first and thus is simply a victim of natural selection. It's nature is to bond with other creatures, it simply decided to bond with someone stronger than it.

I also say if you're going to argue that the simbiote can be "murdered" then you must also argue that the Simbiote raped Peter and Brock. You say that there was "consent" involved but you also imply that Brock was addicted to the simbiote like a "drug," which indicates Date Rape. I'm sorry if you don't like me using this analogy but it's just as crazy and silly imo as your view of him murdering the simbiote.

 

[November Rain]

So, a gunman who kills an innocent bystander isn't really guilty of that either?
Eddie's intent WAS TO MURDER. That he killed someone other than his target doesn't change anything. Peter's actions were to protect further innocents from the symbiote and Eddie's desire to destroy. So yes, he's blameless.

And Eddie's motive wasn't to save the symbiote for the reason's Harry saved Peter. He wanted to preserve his source of power so he could continue his destructive whims. His motives were WRONG. Harry's were right.

your first point is the one i'm trying to make. just replace gun man with police officer and you have spidey now responsible for eddie's demise.

i've already gone through motivations in an earlier post, i'm aware of them, it doesnt change parker being responsible.

Dragon, about your earlier post, i'm not a fan of cutting up posts into a million pieces, are there any parts of that post you'd like me to address in particular otherwise i'm going to leave it.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

He is- but if the guy has already reached the killzone, Peter can't stop the explosion from vaporizing him. Hell- even if Peter managed to fire a webline and pull Eddie back, half his body would've been blown off.

Why don't some of you wonder why Peter didn't pull Norman out of the way of the glider?

Sorry, saw this post too late. And I am one who wonders this. That would be a great character development plot point for Peter to deal with, wondering if he could have done some things differently to stop these villains from "perishing".

 

[November Rain]

You lost me when you started arguing that Peter murdered the simbiote. For one, destroying the simbiote was an act of self defense. For two, the simbiote attack him and Brock first and thus is simply a victim of natural selection. It's nature is to bond with other creatures, it simply decided to bond with someone stronger than it.

I also say if you're going to argue that the simbiote can be "murdered" then you must also argue that the Simbiote raped Peter and Brock. You say that there was "consent" involved but you also imply that Brock was addicted to the simbiote like a "drug," which indicates Date Rape. I'm sorry if you don't like me using this analogy but it's just as crazy and silly imo as your view of him murdering the simbiote.

alright let's slow things down a bit here, you're getting yourself confused.

the symbiote was already managed and somewhat contained in that sound barrier parker set up, its death was somewhat unnecessary and a lil bit too extreme to be classed as self-defense.

alright so now you are saying that the symbiote deserves to die because it attacked spidey? There have been numerous occasions in the first two films where normal pete hasn't attempted to kill anyone even though they attacked him first, are you now saying that all of parker's enemies deserve to die?

as for your addicted to date rape stance, i don't know where that has come from and it strikes me as a lil leftfield 'clutching at straws'.

 

[LordSimen]

alright let's slow things down a bit here, you're getting yourself confused.

the symbiote was already managed and somewhat contained in that sound barrier parker set up, its death was somewhat unnecessary and a lil bit too extreme to be classed as self-defense.

alright so now you are saying that the symbiote deserves to die because it attacked spidey? There have been numerous occasions in the first two films where normal pete hasn't attempted to kill anyone even though they attacked him first, are you now saying that all of parker's enemies deserve to die?

as for your addicted to date rape stance, i don't know where that has come from and it strikes me as a lil leftfield 'clutching at straws'.

What I'm implying is you're treating the simbiote lifeform as if it were a human being, which it's not. If Peter can be responsible for "murdering it" (after it attacked him and Brock and was turning to attack him) then it can be responsible for "raping" him and Brock.

But the fact is it's not a human and thus I don't believe Peter is responsible for murdering it. Natural selection is. It attack him. It attacked Brock. It was destroyed in order to protect others from it. You say it was contained by the sound barrier Peter set up but for how long? And what's gonna happen when someone else finds it? They're gonna turn it into a weapon? Use it for their own good? It escapes and finds someone else? When's it gonna end? You read comic books, you know what happens when the simbiote services, bad **** happens. Much better to simply get rid of it rather than allow what would occur if he didn't to occur. I don't consider it murder, regardless if you do or not.

I'm not saying that all Parker's enemies deserve to die first, I'm saying that this inhuman creature deserved to die because nature deemed it so. Our species can't coexist, it has to go.

 

[Dragon]

your first point is the one i'm trying to make. just replace gun man with police officer and you have spidey now responsible for eddie's demise.

i've already gone through motivations in an earlier post, i'm aware of them, it doesnt change parker being responsible.

Dragon, about your earlier post, i'm not a fan of cutting up posts into a million pieces, are there any parts of that post you'd like me to address in particular otherwise i'm going to leave it.

Okay, replacing the example with a policeman- It's still not the same. If the policeman fires into a crowd and hits a bystander, he's to blame. Peter didn't toss the bomb at Eddie. And another thing- you can see that nothing outside of the bars was damaged. So if Eddie stayed there, he'd have been safe. He again, moved into the danger zone.

 

[Dragon]

Sorry, saw this post too late. And I am one who wonders this. That would be a great character development plot point for Peter to deal with, wondering if he could have done some things differently to stop these villains from "perishing".

But again- Peter knows he can't do everything. If he was fast enough to save Norman, he'd have been fast enough to stop Norman's glider from hitting Gwen at all. Or in the movie context, he'd have been able to prevent Harry from being hit and gotten himself out of the way of Venom's attack.

And Peter has enough problems without having to dwell on cases where the villains put themselves in danger. Just as he's responsible for his decisions, the villains are responsible for theirs.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

I'm not saying that all Parker's enemies deserve to die first, I'm saying that this inhuman creature deserved to die because nature deemed it so. Our species can't coexist, it has to go.

The symbiote didn't deserve to die! Comic book cannon aside, in the movie the symbiote had just landed on Earth and it was unfamiliar with its new surroundings. In essence it acted like a spoiled child little understanding the consequences of its own actions. Eddie, well, he was just a tad bit on the obsessive, mentally disturbed side. When you combine them together you can see where this leads. If by chance they do resurrect Eddie Brock and the symbiote, pehaps they can develop the symbiotic relationship between the two jilted creatures, coming to an agreement over it's moralities, albeit within that unique structure of a delusional world Venom seems to live in. Perhaps bring back John Jameson who took this sabbatical to get extra training in fronting an organization created to help these criminally insane super villains instead of killing them off.

 

[November Rain]

you're saying that humans can only murder other humans? Humans have gone to jail for murdering animals as well ya know.



just because pete was the first person to bond with it doesn't mean he has the right to decide whether it lives or dies. He's not judge jury and executinor, he merely protects the innocent.

All in all, he decides to take a life (regardless of whether it's human or not) and thus ends up taking two accidentally.

that's unecessary negligence to which he shows no real remorse for.

 

[LordSimen]

you're saying that humans can only murder other humans? Humans have gone to jail for murdering animals as well ya know.



just because pete was the first person to bond with it doesn't mean he has the right to decide whether it lives or dies. He's not judge jury and executinor, he merely protects the innocent.

All in all, he decides to take a life (regardless of whether it's human or not) and thus ends up taking two accidentally.

that's unecessary negligence to which he shows no real remorse for.

I feel no remorse for either. Brock chose his own death and the simbiote needed to go. Humans have gone to jail for killing animals, they havn't gone to jail for killing a creature from outerspace attatching itself to their bodies and turning them into mean bastards and causing their enemies to murder their best friend and kidnap their girlfriend.

 

[Eggyman]

This is an interesting subject and I can see sense in the points from both sides.

Something that keeps coming into my head is the end of Batman Begins when Bats tells Ras that he won't kill him but doesn't have to save him lol -- whether that's right or wrong for this particular scenario is another matter, just thought I'd put that out there. I mean how many times should Peter have to save the not-so-innocent Brock? Anybody spot the big ol' smile on his face when jumping to his death? I did. The guy was wacked in the head, no doubt . . . but that doesn't and shouldn't excuse him. He was a willing host to the symbiote, and once hosting said sludge, embraced it fully.

However, Parker being careless is a means to an end for the makers of this brilliant yet sometimes loose franchise: Eddie being killed -- Raimi and SONY's fave past-time of killing off the villains.

 

[November Rain]

Okay, replacing the example with a policeman- It's still not the same. If the policeman fires into a crowd and hits a bystander, he's to blame. Peter didn't toss the bomb at Eddie. And another thing- you can see that nothing outside of the bars was damaged. So if Eddie stayed there, he'd have been safe. He again, moved into the danger zone.

If a police officer starts taking shots without making sure that innocent bystanders aren't in harm's way, then yes he is thus responsible.

same way a demoliton company are responsible for making sure a building area is secure before they knock it down. Regardless of if it was clear 2 months ago or any other time right up to when the explosions go off.

You can't rely on people, especially people as disturbed as brock to help themselves. Brock praying for the demise of other people as well as his actions as venom are not the signs of a stable person and pete realised this by trying to reason with him earlier on. He even heard eddie pleaing with him as he was throwing the bomb.


look at this, in the sandman car scene earlier, spiderman made sure the driver of the van would be safe by throwing them not only out of the car but onto some webbing well clear of the danger zone in next to no time whatsoever. Same way he made sure the people he rescued from the kids were returned to adults and not just left to wander back into the building.

I can understand maybe he wasn't in the best frame of mind but again, it's not reflected properly when eddie dies, he is sad but doesn't feel regretful or guilty in the slightest.

to sum up, do my demolition or police analogies give you the viewpoint i'm coming from?

 

[November Rain]

I feel no remorse for either. Brock chose his own death and the simbiote needed to go. Humans have gone to jail for killing animals, they havn't gone to jail for killing a creature from outerspace attatching itself to their bodies and turning them into mean bastards and causing their enemies to murder their best friend and kidnap their girlfriend.

but doesn't this creature then deserve some sort of trial for its actions

if you feel no guilt for eddie, do you then feel some remorse for harry who i felt did pretty much the same thing and chose his fate to save parker?

 

[Dragon]

If a police officer starts taking shots without making sure that innocent bystanders aren't in harm's way, then yes he is thus responsible.

same way a demoliton company are responsible for making sure a building area is secure before they knock it down. Regardless of if it was clear 2 months ago or any other time right up to when the explosions go off.

That's completely different. You're talking about something planned months in advance. They could set up warnings and police the site. and if, after all of that some nut decides to trespass that's not their fault. Spidey 3 was a completely opposite situation where EVERYTHING is chaotic and unplanned.

You can't rely on people, especially people as disturbed as brock to help themselves. Brock praying for the demise of other people as well as his actions as venom are not the signs of a stable person and pete realised this by trying to reason with him earlier on. He even heard eddie pleaing with him as he was throwing the bomb.

And you know what? Too bad. Peter didn't have time to be Eddie's therapist, priest or savior. He was trying to stop a deadly creature from commiting more damage and taking more lives. He can't think of every possible scenario. Just which will lead to the least amount of harm.

look at this, in the sandman car scene earlier, spiderman made sure the driver of the van would be safe by throwing them not only out of the car but onto some webbing well clear of the danger zone in next to no time whatsoever. Same way he made sure the people he rescued from the kids were returned to adults and not just left to wander back into the building.

Peter had immensely more time during the armored truck scene than at the construction site. And there he had only one thing to consider. Saving the security guards. Not saving them, fighting Sandman and stopping oncoming traffic.

I can understand maybe he wasn't in the best frame of mind but again, it's not reflected properly when eddie dies, he is sad but doesn't feel regretful or guilty in the slightest.

to sum up, do my demolition or police analogies give you the viewpoint i'm coming from?

I understand your point- but I think again you're putting the responsiblity for EVERYTHING in Peter's lap. He has great power, and uses it as best he can. But we ALL are responsible for ourselves. Someone being there to help us is great. But they might not be there, and we have to look to ourselves to work things out.

The fact that Sam emphasized Peter making bad choices (I mean regarding the suit and some of his dealing with MJ) shows that Peter is just like all of us. He can make mistakes and fail. In these situations he does his best to make things right. That's all he can do.

The difference is in the case of the subway. there, he WAS wrong, as he intentionally tried to killed Marko rather than trying to just defeat him. Marko wasn't an immediate threat to him or trying to kill him. The symbiote was.

That Eddie couldn't let go of his vessel for getting back at the world is nothing for Peter to feel guilty over. Sad for Eddie, but not guilty.
And let's be real- comic book sensibilities and "I've got to be better than the bad guy" nonsense aside, How much guilt would you feel in fatally stopping someone who was going to kill you or your loved ones?

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

"I've got to be better than the bad guy" nonsense aside, How much guilt would you feel in fatally stopping someone who was going to kill you or your loved ones?

Not to wildly take this thread off-topic, but I loved how Raimi played with that in Darkman when the bad guy feeds him that whole song and dance and Darkman ends up killing him anyway.

 

[November Rain]

if you can say you felt peter honestly did the best he could in that situation with regards to securing eddie and attempting to save him once he realised he had jumped than fair enough...

if eddie would have cut his way through some webbing, jumped into the blast and freed himself from any sort of grip spidey had on him before the bomb went off, i would be agreeing with you.

parker knew eddie could get drowned by the power of the symbiote and allowed this temptation to occur which ultimately resulted in eddie's death. Pete could have shared a similar fate if the symbiote had bonded with him more sufficiently and he was in eddie's position.

I think this is really nothing more than you believe that people are in charge of their own destinies where i believe certain people should be properly governed in order to keep them from harm at all times, not just a past immediate danger.

yours puts eddie at fault...

mine leaves parker laregly responsible for not taking proper precautions leading to eddie's manslaughter although if the situation was handled differently, eddie or the symbiote wouldn't have to die.

 

[November Rain]

first post, congratulations



I just find it hard that a nation that finds fast food outlets responsible for serving hot chocolate drinks without 'warning' signs , also think that that spidey's actions make him in no way responsible for eddie's death.

 

[November Rain]

well...good luck on your quest then.

 

[Morg]

*whistles*