The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Does this movie really deserve the hate it gets?

[LEVITIKUZ]

CBM.com doesn't like this film series. They are also really mixed towards Dark Knight Rises (probably more positive though) and Man of Steel. It seems like they really liked DOFP which while I was there it probably got more hate then TASM2 during production.

Iron Man 3 was a fun time. Some ****er spoiled the film in the beginning of April and it set the site on fire. He posted spoilers to the film on every article that was posted. The whole site was in panic mode for the next month after hearing the spoilers.

 

[Erzengel]

What's the consensus of TWS and GOTG there?

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

What do you think? Same as everyone else's. They love it & they were skeptical of it because of Russo's directing it & them not doing Black Panther but GOTG.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Rachel's death was entirely devoid of emotion. I love TDK trilogy, but they are cold films. They aren't tear-jerkers filled with warm characters you fall in love with. Webb's style is vastly different than Nolan's, which works for both directors I feel.

When Rachel died, no one in the theater cared. Gwen's death? The entire theater was struck by it.

Really, there is no "truth" as to which death is better. All people respond to different things more in film. It's more about which one you liked more.

...and, so far, TASM's death scenes felt more real and powerful to me than most other superhero death scenes. Or, at the very least, made me feel sad. That's more than I can say for most death scenes in most movies.

Agreed.

 

[Erzengel]

What do you think? Same as everyone else's. They love it & they were skeptical of it because of Russo's directing it & them not doing Black Panther but GOTG.

Just checking.

It just backs up what I've been saying about sites like this and CBMs. The creme usually rises to the top.

 

[Spider-knight]

everybody online hates man of steel. they keep referencing how bad the movie is even the comics made fun of the movie. TASM 2 is getting the same treatment as well minus the references.

TDKR also gets mentioned of it being a problematic movie same with iron man 3 and i don't think it's just the mandarin

 

[W/ Great Power]

the thing with the spinoff is that we're suppose to root for the six but i hope we root for spiderman in the climax and in the third movie and make the whole situation like spiderman and peter are actually in danger.

They can still pull that off, making us sympathetic towards them in their cause but also feel their power and eventual wrath.

To me, failure isn't an option with the characterization of the S6. I don't want to have to see a future reboot have to cover the same plot again. They really need to execute this properly and set a new bar for villains.

I think if you want to be the first to take on a particular plot on the big screen, you should already have a solid plan in mind; not just go for it for the sake of being first.

 

[Spider-knight]

that is true. i can see the development and characteristics being pulled off well and i hope for some struggle in their battle with spiderman like kraven the hunter for example

 

[LizardMan07]

Ah thank you



You too, mate. Enjoy your ASM marathon.



It wasn't believed that Peter's web killed her. Goblin pretty much cleared that one up in the very moment it happened, clarifying that it was the fall that killed her;

But Peter himself wasn't sure, but he still blamed himself anyway. Writer Gerry Conway admitted that he added the "snap" into the story to torture readers with the distinct possibility that Spider-Man himself may have inadvertently killed Gwen, a "snap" that neither Spider-Man nor the Green Goblin heard (hence the Goblin's assumption in The Amazing Spider-Man (vol. 1) #121 that the shock of the fall killed Gwen - "Romantic idiot! She was dead before your webbing reached her! A fall from that height would kill anyone—before they struck the ground!").

In The Amazing Spider-Man (vol. 1) #125 (October 1973), Roy Thomas wrote in the letters column that "it saddens us to have to say that the whiplash effect she underwent when Spidey's webbing stopped her so suddenly was, in fact, what killed her. In short, it was impossible for Peter to save her. He couldn't have swung down in time; the action he did take resulted in her death; if he had done nothing, she still would certainly have perished. There was no way out." They also explained that Gerry Conway, Roy Thomas, and Stan Lee had decided that she had to die because Peter Parker wasn't ready for marriage, and the relationship was too often off and on again.

Real word experts claim that in reality it would have. Physicist James Kakalios shows in his book The Physics of Superheroes that, consistent with Newton's laws of motion, the sudden stop would have killed Gwen. The comic book Civil War: Casualties of War: Captain America/Iron Man (2007) concurred that the proximate cause of death was the sudden stop during a high-speed fall.

But in the comic books the blame came from her being targeted because she was his girlfriend. She was killed because of her association with him. She didn't know she was dating Spider-Man. She didn't know the danger she was possibly in, the risks that came with being with Peter. She died for it. Though the comics later confirmed the fall killed her, not his webbing. In the fourth issue of Marvels, the police forensic scientist reports that she died from the shock of the fall prior to her neck breaking, placing the blame on the Green Goblin and not Spider-Man.

Which makes sense because whiplash couldn't have killed Gwen- because there is no whiplash with Spidey's webbing. As the movies so effectively display, Spidey's webbing is not like rope, which is unyielding. Spidey's webbing stretches with a bungee effect. In fact, if it didn't stretch, it would never have reached Gwen at all. So once the webline had a firm hold on Gwen's leg, it would have stretched with her weight, coming to a gradual, not a sudden stop. If the webbing didn't work this way, Spidey would regularly wrench his arms out of their sockets.

What's always puzzled me is that people have never looked at the most obvious culprit- the hit that sent Gwen flying from the bridge in the first place. Look at the scene- Spidey is reaching for Gwen- but the Goblin swoops in and hits her before Spidey can reach her. We're talking about a solid metal device, with sharp edges, flying at top speed, which can easily carry a load of more than 1000 lbs. (If you go by the movie that increases to several tons). The impact would have certainly been fatal. Fact is, if the comics weren't censored, the impact would have likely cut Gwen in two.

Sorry for the information overload, but I didn't want to give you a half baked answer.

This is your best post yet.

Honestly, I have no idea how you remembered all that. What a good breakdown, haha.

So in the comics, the blame was more in the fact that Peter inadvertantly put her in that position? The blame is certainly more defined in the comics.

However, and this is just how I view it, I still liked your post, Peter is still at fault for

A.) Getting back with her in the first place, contravening Captain Stacy's wish. (Not comic accurate, I know)

B.) Stopping her from leaving to England at the bridge scene.

I think where the comics and the movie unite together is in the effect it had on Peter. Maybe not even the same effect, but the gravity of the effect is consistent.

The tragedy of it all was captured very well for me, Gwen knew the risks, Peter knew she knew. She was always going to throw herself into danger at some point, it was just her character in the films. Peter is still fundamentally at fault, and this is the tragic part, for loving her enough to take the risk. It's a cute line, that there's a million reasons not to do it, but in the end, one of those reasons actually happened, and Peter is left absolutely shattered. He sure has hell blamed himself, he quit being spider-man, I'm assuming because he put the blame on the mask.

The way Spider-Man overcomes tragedy, becomes greater than what he suffers and becomes a hero is why I love him so damn much, and I think that aspect is really well put together in Webb's films especially.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

It just backs up what I've been saying about sites like this and CBMs. The creme usually rises to the top.

Exactly. It's not that well liked because it simply wasn't that good a movie. There's nothing mistunderstood about it, ASM2 was just a letdown.

 

[Daltonio]

Exactly. It's not that well liked because it simply wasn't that good a movie. There's nothing mistunderstood about it, ASM2 was just a letdown.

In your opinion.

I wasn't let down in the slightest, it delivered on everything I was hoping for. To answer the OP, I'd personally say no, it doesn't deserve the hate at all.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

It really depends on the level of hate. Do I think this is a Green Lantern, Fantastic Four, or B&R sized failure? No. It does some things way more than it did.

But at the end of the day, this is still the lowest grossing Spider-Man movie and the least liked spider-Man movie that doesn't include a strutting, Hitler-lite Tobey Maguire.

 

[Daltonio]

Point taken

 

[The Joker]

This is your best post yet.

Honestly, I have no idea how you remembered all that. What a good breakdown, haha.

So in the comics, the blame was more in the fact that Peter inadvertantly put her in that position? The blame is certainly more defined in the comics.

However, and this is just how I view it, I still liked your post, Peter is still at fault for

A.) Getting back with her in the first place, contravening Captain Stacy's wish. (Not comic accurate, I know)

B.) Stopping her from leaving to England at the bridge scene.

I think where the comics and the movie unite together is in the effect it had on Peter. Maybe not even the same effect, but the gravity of the effect is consistent.

The tragedy of it all was captured very well for me, Gwen knew the risks, Peter knew she knew. She was always going to throw herself into danger at some point, it was just her character in the films. Peter is still fundamentally at fault, and this is the tragic part, for loving her enough to take the risk. It's a cute line, that there's a million reasons not to do it, but in the end, one of those reasons actually happened, and Peter is left absolutely shattered. He sure has hell blamed himself, he quit being spider-man, I'm assuming because he put the blame on the mask.

The way Spider-Man overcomes tragedy, becomes greater than what he suffers and becomes a hero is why I love him so damn much, and I think that aspect is really well put together in Webb's films especially.

Thank you. You and I have never discussed this before, and I know you like a full explanation. Gwen's death is a fan favorite topic in the comics forums, been discussed a hundred times over the years, so these things just stay with you lol.

Peter is absolved of all blame in TASM 2 because Gwen went straight into known danger, and against Peter's wishes. Breaking Stacy's promise and not going to Oxford are not what killed her. Gwen would have been alive and well if she had simply done the sensible thing and not gone into the middle of a super villain battle. But she did, against Peter's wishes who tried to verbally and physically stop her, and as she spelled out it was her choice, not Peter's. So he is absolved of feeling any guilt for what happened to her.

Whereas in the comics, he never told her he was Spider-Man, so she had no idea she was in a dangerous relationship that could make her a target, and it did, and she died for it. There is none of this great tragedy there in the movie. Gwen has only herself to blame for her own death in the movie. Peter could easily have wept over her dead body saying "Why didn't you stay away like I told you. WHY WHY WHY?!?". In the comics there was nothing Gwen could have done to save herself because she had no idea of the potential danger she was in thanks to Peter.

Exactly. It's not that well liked because it simply wasn't that good a movie. There's nothing mistunderstood about it, ASM2 was just a letdown.

Exactly

 

[LizardMan07]

Thank you. You and I have never discussed this before, and I know you like a full explanation. Gwen's death is a fan favorite topic in the comics forums, been discussed a hundred times over the years, so these things just stay with you lol.

Peter is absolved of all blame in TASM 2 because Gwen went straight into known danger, and against Peter's wishes. Breaking Stacy's promise and not going to Oxford are not what killed her. Gwen would have been alive and well if she had simply done the sensible thing and not gone into the middle of a super villain battle. But she did, against Peter's wishes who tried to verbally and physically stop her, and as she spelled out it was her choice, not Peter's. So he is absolved of feeling any guilt for what happened to her.

Whereas in the comics, he never told her he was Spider-Man, so she had no idea she was in a dangerous relationship that could make her a target, and it did, and she died for it. There is none of this great tragedy there in the movie. Gwen has only herself to blame for her own death in the movie. Peter could easily have wept over her dead body saying "Why didn't you stay away like I told you. WHY WHY WHY?!?". In the comics there was nothing Gwen could have done to save herself because she had no idea of the potential danger she was in thanks to Peter.



Exactly

Ok, so I'm going to try 2 different logical strains here, because I can get long winded when I try this, you're free to break down my post if you feel the need to, I was being a bit of a (nasty guy) when I told you it annoyed me, haha.

1)

Ok, so first thing I'm going for is a logical chain of events that lead up to Gwen's death, if an event was dependent on another event, the blame can be pushed back, if the event if irrelevant to the overall consequence, (Gwen's death) it is not counted.

Going back to TASM;

Gwen meets Peter- No
Peter asks Gwen out- No (or POSSIBlLY yes, if you want to get REALLY philosophical)
Peter Kisses Gwen- No
Peter saves Gwen @ School- No
Captain Stacy dies, tells Peter to leave Gwen out of it- YES, this was an explicit directive to keep Gwen out of danger, regardless of his feelings. Peter has now made an explicit promise to keep Gwen safe. It is now his personal responsibility, to prevent action or inaction that contravenes this promise.

Peter "Those are the best time"- Peter breaks this in about 5 film minutes with perhaps the strangest, borderline pychopathic, lines in CBM history, it was cute they got back together though. This basically breaks the chain. We need a new link.

TASM2

Peter Chats to Gwen on Phone- He's breaking caps promise, but he's ignored him right?
Pete sees cap- This shows that Peter has a moral weight on his shoulders, thus reinstating the promise as the predominant moment. Whilst Pete's blame was previously on the "best kind" line, the blame will now preceed this moment.

Pete kisses Gwen- This shows that Pete can feel guilty about the promise, whilst still being in a relationship with Gwen; indicates the promise doesn't how much weight at this point.

Pete is dumped by Gwen- Chain reinstated, Peter says he can't be with her anymore, () Gwen gets mad and acts like Emma Stone for a bit and cuts him loose.

Pete stalks Gwen- Unneccesary to mention, but I just did.

Song for Zula Scene- Gwen initiates contact, under the proviso of "just friends", however, this kinda turns into a mini date? Gwen just intended to tell him she's buggering off to England, sooo, we'll leave it here.

Closet Scene- Peter Kisses Gwen, promise broken. New point of blame

Oxford Scene- Gwen "Maybe we're on different plans" Attempt from Gwen to inadvertantley keep the promise, as such, promise is momentarily kept.

Peter sulks in roosevelt- Unrelated but he found a train! (these tid bits are to keep you entertained by the way)

Gwen Phone dumps pete- Definative solidification of the Oxford scene, promise is now in play. As it stands, the promise will be kept, and Gwen will not die. The promise is therefore becoming a central tenant of Guilt.

Bridge- Peter reinitiates contact, openly admits that no reason will stop him being with her. Final, break of the promise. This means accepting "1 million reasons" why they should not be together are a possibilty, but their love will trancend that. That means accepting things may go bad, that she MAY die (they have recognised this).

Power Plant- Gwen fights against Peters wishes and stays at the powerplant. Promise is already broken, and Gwen could NOT have been at the powerplant without Peter's previous actions. As such, Peter is retroactively to blame for Gwen's actions.

Gwen dies- Yeah...

To conclude, Gwen died because Peter held a long time promise, but that's ok because those are the best kind

In seriousness, I think that's my overall position as to why Peter is to blame for the Death of Gwen in TASM2. Feel free to refute it if you wish, I'm an odd fella for just taking a "chain of events" approach.

Now, let's look at the situation practically. (2) (Possibly more subjective I feel)

What is an easier action?

To physically force Gwen out of the powerplant? Who is to say he cannot webswing her away from the place whilst electro is knocked out?

To just not take her on the bridge?

Obviously action 2, but even if we say action 1, is it logically possible to say that Gwen overpowered a superhero?

Peter had the means to move her, he had the means to not even HAVE to move her, he didn't though. He could have not stood around like a stoned fish and actually pulled some spider sense off and swung gwen away as Goblin did his 12 second double take on the two.

Peter was at fault, in a similar sort of ambigious, not direct, way to the comics.(He didn't shoot gwen, he was around gwen and facilitated an evil act to occur through his prescene that led to Gwen's demise)

I feel that's at least 50% logically sound and 50% rambling. Close enough

 

[The Joker]

You don't need to list the chain of events to come to a logical conclusion here. There is one event and one event only that killed Gwen, and that was her refusal to stay out of danger by going into the Electro battle. Had she stayed away, she would still be alive. Also Harry would never have figured out Peter was Spider-Man thanks to her presence there.

If Gwen had been oblivious to the risks of being with Peter, or that Captain Stacy had made him promise to keep away from her, then that would be a different story altogether. Peter would be withholding vital information from her and not allowing her to make her own choice on what she wants to do. But that's not the case. She knows he's Spider-Man and accepts the risks of being with him, just like every love interest he's been with and knew his secret. She knew the promise her father made Peter make, but Gwen rejected that and so rightly said it's their choice to be together not her father's.

This was a Gwen who knew everything she needed to know, and every decision made was made by her. Hence why her death is entirely her own fault. Well Goblin's, too, obviously because he's a murderer, but Gwen is the only one to blame for presenting him with the opportunity, and blowing Spider-Man's identity to Harry in the process.

 

[LizardMan07]

Do you see how she couldn't have even been there to give Goblin a chance to kill her though if Peter hadn't stopped her going to Oxford.

Her decision cannot occur if the events preceeding it do not. For me, the definitive moment was peter dragging her back. As she is then placed into a situation where she is killed.

How could she have been at the Power Plant if peter didn't stop her going to Oxford?

That's my reasoning, I can see why you're keen to look at the actual event, but I'm just not sure if that could have occured if Peter didn't make it happen, if that makes sense.

On a side note, who ever in human history has got accepted into a scholarship in a foreign and then decided to head off to that country ON THE SAME DAY? I never noticed that.

 

[The Joker]

Yeah obviously she can't have made the choice she made if she had not been there because Peter got her to stay. Peter stopping her from going to Oxford was not the reason she died. It was the choice Gwen made. A choice she didn't have to make, and was easily avoidable.

It's like if you send someone to the store for groceries, and the store gets held up while they're there, and they are shot. You're not to blame either directly or indirectly. Even less so in this situation because Peter didn't send Gwen to the power plant, or anywhere that had danger. The opposite in fact. He tried to stop her.

There's no blame on anyone's part for the choices someone else makes of their own free will. Especially when they didn't have to make them and you tried to stop them.

 

[LizardMan07]

I feel like we're at a stalemate, which is ok.

It was a choice Gwen made

But she couldn't have made it if she wasn't there? She intended to be at England at that point, Peter roped her in.

Hmm, the grocery store example is kind of different. Just in the fact that the person was intending to never be anywhere near a grocery store and then you put them in a situation where it occured.

I ranted here and the following was something I considered deleting but it made me chuckle so enjoy

The fact of the matter is, the person never would have been shot if you didn't stop them from fleeing to Amsterdam and instead, went to the grocery store yourself to stop one theif. The person then, infactuated with you, rocks up the the grocery store, glues the person to a wall. You're like, "what the hell, get out of the grocery store", she says, NO, I AM NOT JUST A STRONG FEMALE LEAD but also a person! I will not leave. If you truely want her to leave the grocery store, you use your superpowers to get her out of there before your drunken uncle realises you're connected to his ex wife and gets mad. Killing the person you sent to the grocery store.

You're not responsible for others choices, unless your actions put that person in a situation where they HAD to make a choice.

Even then, if you accept that she went to the place out of her own free will, not Peter's fault, why didn't Peter remove her from the situation? He had time, and had already webbed her to a car.

I think we're probably not going to convince each other as the events where we think the blame primarily occurs are different.

If we place it where I think the blame occurs, it is logical that Peter Parker is at major fault.

If we place it where you think the blame occurs, it is more debatable, assuming Peter CANNOT do anything to get Gwen out of the situation, he is not to blame, and it is Gwen's fault.

Just consider that I've already pretty much "proven" through the chain above that the blame logically occurs before the actual event.

Also, we're talking DIRECT blame here, we haven't even considered indirect or third person blame.

I'm happy to keep chatting if you are, because I think we can tease this out further.

 

[Spider-knight]

Can anyone explain the timeline in the film?

 

[The Joker]

But she couldn't have made it if she wasn't there? She intended to be at England at that point, Peter roped her in.

Yeah, but that's not what killed her. It was the stupid choice she made. You can't lay blame on a person, either directly or indirectly, for someone else making a freewill decision. Especially when they know the danger involved in making it.

If Peter getting her to stay had forced her into it then that would be a different story.

Hmm, the grocery store example is kind of different. Just in the fact that the person was intending to never be anywhere near a grocery store and then you put them in a situation where it occured.

Exactly. That's my point. Even if you did send someone to the store, and that happened, it still would not be your fault. With Peter and Gwen he didn't knowingly or unknowingly send her into danger. He even tried to stop her.

So he is completely absolved of any blame.

You're not responsible for others choices, unless your actions put that person in a situation where they HAD to make a choice.

Right, and Peter did not put Gwen into a position where she had to make that choice. She could have easily stayed out of it.

Even then, if you accept that she went to the place out of her own free will, not Peter's fault, why didn't Peter remove her from the situation? He had time, and had already webbed her to a car.

Because he thought webbing her to the car would have stopped her. Short of tying and gagging her somewhere, or knocking her unconscious, he couldn't have stopped her.

But again Peter's not to blame for Gwen's stubbornness and foolishness.

Just consider that I've already pretty much "proven" through the chain above that the blame logically occurs before the actual event.

Also, we're talking DIRECT blame here, we haven't even considered indirect or third person blame.

But you didn't. None of the chain above leads logically and naturally to what happened. Only one thing and one thing only led to Gwen's death and that's Gwen's choice. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's no two ways about it that if she had simply been sensible and done as Peter said she would be alive, and Harry wouldn't know Peter was Spider-Man.

That's all there is to it. It's not a complicated issue. That's why they have her say in the movie it's her choice and nobody else's. That's telling the audience hey everyone I'm here because I chose to be. Nobody made me come here.

 

[Erzengel]

Peter stops her physically with his webbing. Gwen freed herself and went to the power plant. Then after she rescues him with the car, he pleads with her to leave and we get the big speech. So outside of Peter risking the whole city to carry her out of there, he really didn't have a choice.

 

[LizardMan07]

Yeah, but that's not what killed her. It was the stupid choice she made. You can't lay blame, either directly or indirectly, on someone making a freewill decision. Especially when they know the danger involved in making it.

Yes, you can. If I arm someone with a gun, and then their freewill leads them to murder someone, I am somewhat culpable for arming them. If a parent raises a child to do X, and then they choose to do X, the parent is culpable.

You're stating absolute truth to that statement, and in actual fact it's a complex ethical issue.

To me, the most uncomplicated way to view this is from a view where every action has a demonstratable effect as that's the most basic view of reality we have. Consequentialism baaaaby. (totally tongue in cheek, that last bit )

If Peter getting her to stay had forced her into it then that would be a different story.

It certainly made the action occur.

Exactly. That's my point. Even if you did send someone to the store, and that happened, it still would not be your fault. With Peter and Gwen he didn't knowingly or unknowingly send her into danger. He even tried to stop her.

His action led to her choice which led to her death. Consequentially he played a part in her death.

So he is completely absolved of any blame.

Why?

Right, and Peter did not put Gwen into a position where she had to make that choice. She could have easily stayed out of it.

Yes, he did. She never would have had to make the choice if she was on a plane to Oxford University.

Because he thought webbing her to the car would have stopped her. Short of tying and gagging her somewhere, or knocking her unconscious, he couldn't have stopped her.

How about when she's in the power plant, with lectro knocked out, he grabs her, swings her to the top of the nearest building, and webswings back to face electro?

But again Peter's not to blame for Gwen's stubbornness and foolishness.

He is to blame for putting her in a situation to be helpful.

But you didn't. None of the chain above leads logically and naturally to what happened. Only one thing and one thing only led to Gwen's death and that's Gwen's choice. Nothing more, nothing less.

How? How so? Its not sufficient to just say it isn't logical or natural? Why? I listed every event, with the blame shifting, and it is clear that Gwen's choice simply CANNOT exist without the prior actions of peter.

No, not only one thing lead to Gwen's death. That's a fallacy in of itself. A multitude of factors which I laid out before led to her death. How can you say that? When the film literally shows these events happening on the screen?

There's no two ways about it that if she had simply been sensible and done as Peter said she would be alive, and Harry wouldn't know Peter was Spider-Man.

Hoooold on, lightbulb moment. We don't even need to debate the other stuff almost now.

But before you said that people aren't responsible for each others choices out of their own free will right?

By that logic, Gwen was not responsible for Harry's choice to throw her off a clocktower.

By your very logic, Harry is soley to blame.

So, obviously that logic is farcical, we must go back and look at past choices, to justify subsequent choices, if we look back from harry's choice, we find Gwen's, and then peters, which is where the chain of choice's logically stops, as I have explained before.

That's all there is to it. It's not a complicated issue. That's why they have her say in the movie it's her choice and nobody else's. That's telling the audience hey everyone I'm here because I chose to be. Nobody made me come here.

And nobody made Harry throw her into the clocktower... If we don't apply a logical chain of being then we have to apply your strain of logical absolutism where nothing is linked, and thus, the last decision leading towards the consequence discussed is the decision that is ultimately to be blamed for the consequence.

Now, I'm not saying you are farcical or illogical, because you're not. The logic you're applying however in this case is fundamentally flawed from a philosophical, logical and even ethical point of view.

There's no way to attack the arguement that ends in a result where the blame rests on Gwen

It is either linked, or it isn't. I've explained why both those lead to Gwen's "innocence" in this case.

I think I've closed my case after far too much rambling, good discussion

 

[The Joker]

Peter stops her physically with his webbing. Gwen freed herself and went to the power plant. Then after she rescues him with the car, he pleads with her to leave and we get the big speech. So outside of Peter risking the whole city to carry her out of there, he really didn't have a choice.

Exactly

Yes, you can. If I arm someone with a gun, and then their freewill leads them to murder someone, I am somewhat culpable for arming them. If a parent raises a child to do X, and then they choose to do X, the parent is culpable.

No you can't. Your analogy is very flawed. For a start why are you giving someone a gun? Is it someone you trust? Is it someone capable of handling a firearm responsibly?

If you're just handing a lethal weapon to some random Joe then yeah you're responsible because you've no idea who you're giving it to. Could be a psycho or a serial killer. If you give the gun to someone you know to be trustworthy and capable of safely and sensibly handling a gun, then that's ok.

If said person chooses to use it in a wrong way, that's their fault. Not yours.

You're stating absolute truth to that statement, and in actual fact it's a complex ethical issue.

That's because it is an absolute truth. Only Gwen is responsible for her own freewill choices.

There is no grey area there. You can't blame others for decisions you make on your own.

It certainly made the action occur.

No it didn't. Only one thing made the action occur. Gwen's choice. No pressure or persuasion from anyone else led to her doing this.

His action led to her choice which led to her death. Consequentially he played a part in her death.

No it didn't. Only one thing led to her death and that was the choice she made. People are responsible for the choices they make. Nobody else. Common sense and fact.

Why?

Because Gwen and only Gwen is responsible for her own choices. Any consequences of her own decisions are hers and hers alone.

Yes, he did. She never would have had to make the choice if she was on a plane to Oxford University.

No, she didn't. She did not have to make that choice at all. That's where your logic is all wrong here. She never had to make that choice. It was not forced on her.

She could have done what was sensible and stayed out of it just like Peter told her to do.

How about when she's in the power plant, with lectro knocked out, he grabs her, swings her to the top of the nearest building, and webswings back to face electro?

What's stopping her from running straight back there? You can't keep placing the onus of blame on Peter for not doing X, Y, and Z to stop Gwen from doing something she wanted to do, when he already tried to verbally and physically stop her anyway.

As someone else already mentioned above Peter stops her physically with his webbing. Gwen freed herself and went to the power plant. Then after she rescues him with the car, he pleads with her to leave and we get the big speech. So outside of Peter risking the whole city to carry her out of there, he really didn't have a choice.

He is to blame for putting her in a situation to be helpful.

No he's not. Only Gwen is by choosing to be helpful.

How? How so? Its not sufficient to just say it isn't logical or natural? Why? I listed every event, with the blame shifting, and it is clear that Gwen's choice simply CANNOT exist without the prior actions of peter.

Because it isn't logical or natural. These chain of events didn't all naturally climax in a situation where Gwen had no choice but to do what she did. She had a choice. Stay out of harm's way, or put herself in danger. She chose the dangerous choice, in spite of Peter trying to stop her. Ergo it's her fault for what happened to her.

That is a fact. Not an opinion.

No, not only one thing lead to Gwen's death. That's a fallacy in of itself. A multitude of factors which I laid out before led to her death. How can you say that? When the film literally shows these events happening on the screen?

Because a multitude of factors did not lead to Gwen's death. Only one factor did. The choice she made. She could have chosen to stay out of it like Peter wanted and she would still be alive and Harry wouldn't know Peter is Spider-Man.

Again that's a fact not an opinion.

Hoooold on, lightbulb moment. We don't even need to debate the other stuff almost now.

But before you said that people aren't responsible for each others choices out of their own free will right?

By that logic, Gwen was not responsible for Harry's choice to throw her off a clocktower.

Yes she is because she went there when she KNEW it was dangerous. Any consequences of Gwen going into danger is her fault.

Obviously Harry is to blame for actually killing her, but it's her fault that she was there to give the bad guy the opportunity to do it. It was like sticking her head in a lion's mouth and not expecting him to bite it off. The villain acting villainous and dangerous is the reason why Peter tried to keep her away in the first place. It was too dangerous. She deliberately went there knowing it was going to be dangerous.

So, obviously that logic is farcical, we must go back and look at past choices, to justify subsequent choices, if we look back from harry's choice, we find Gwen's, and then peters, which is where the chain of choice's logically stops, as I have explained before.

The logic is sound. You're just skewing it into something it's not with strawman points. No offense to you, BRAB, I like you a lot and you're an excellent debater, but I've never seen anyone turn such a simple straight forward concept into something so unnecessarily complicated.

And nobody made Harry throw her into the clocktower... If we don't apply a logical chain of being then we have to apply your strain of logical absolutism where nothing is linked, and thus, the last decision leading towards the consequence discussed is the decision that is ultimately to be blamed for the consequence.

Harry is a dangerous villain. Electro is a dangerous villain. That's what they do which is why they're dangerous. It's why Peter didn't want Gwen going there. DANGER. Gwen playing the hero and going into a dangerous situation she had no business to be in is her own fault. That's why she's to blame for what happened to her.

There's no way to attack the arguement that ends in a result where the blame rests on Gwen

Yes there is because Gwen deliberately chose to go into a very dangerous situation of her own free will with no pressure or persuasion from anyone else.

That's what this all boils down to. Choices. Nobody made Gwen's choice for her. She did. Only her. And again the movie had her spell that out just in case there was any doubt.

I think I've closed my case after far too much rambling, good discussion

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

It's jarring how respectful people are on these parts of the forums. Quick somebody get angry!