Sandman Is Not A "Villian" in SP3.. He is a Victim of the Black Suit

[ShadowBoxing]

That's my point. THEY HAVE A PLAN. Marko takes off with the money and the carjacker takes the car. So, the carjacker is the one the cops focus on while Marko escapes with the money. Car theft is a much lower crime than murder. And again, with no ballistics, no gun powder residue, the cops can't pin
Ben's murder on the carjacker. And note that he was successfully escaping them, but for Peter.

That's hopelessly complicated, especially when you consider HE ALREADY STOLE OVER 1000 DOLLARS from a bookie. If Marko were going to take off with that money, he might as well hand Marko the cash and then run off and find a car for himself.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Remember the story is about the dangers of revenge. If he (and his black suit) harshly dealt with Flint Marko, and it turns out he IS the real killer every action by Peter is justified. The audience would sympathize with Peter for enacting a final revenge.

If he isn't, and Peter is wrong. Then Aunt May words "that revenge is like a poison" are correct.

Marko has to have a reason to fight Spidey (and team up with Venom at the end) what better reason than having Spider-Man beat him up for a crime he never committed.

 

[Dragon]

It's not complicated in the least. It took me all of ten seconds to think of it after reading your post. Not a foolproof plan, just spur of the moment. And it isn't as if we're talking about two rocket scientists here. After all. one does wind up in jail and the other dead.

 

[Dragon]

Remember the story is about the dangers of revenge. If he (and his black suit) harshly dealt with Flint Marko, and it turns out he IS the real killer every action by Peter is justified. The audience would sympathize with Peter for enacting a final revenge.

If he isn't, and Peter is wrong. Then Aunt May words "that revenge is like a poison" are correct.

Marko has to have a reason to fight Spidey (and team up with Venom at the end) what better reason than having Spider-Man beat him up for a crime he never committed.

Of course its about the dangers of revenge. But not because Peter is after the wrong guy. It's about Peter learning to take the higher road, like he did with the Goblin after he killed Gwen. The Goblin was certainly guilty and even deserving of revenge. But Peter realized that he'd be going against his own beliefs by killing him. Sam Raimi is obviously tapping into that type of drama.

It's also like the recent Amish shooting where the community showed forgiveness to the shooter and mourned with his family.

It would be meaningless if Marko didn't actually shoot Ben.

 

[terry78]

That would be good way to showcase basically how Spider-Man proves that he is, for lack of a better term, better than everyone he protects, as any of us would take out the guy guilty of killing a loved one if given the chance.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

It's not complicated in the least. It took me all of ten seconds to think of it

Then perhaps you should have thought it over for more than ten seconds to get rid of all the GLARING PLOT HOLES IN IT.

That's like "of course this equation is right...it took me ten seconds to think of it"

after reading your post. Not a foolproof plan, just spur of the moment. And it isn't as if we're talking about two rocket scientists here. After all. one does wind up in jail and the other dead.

You just said yourself, they had a plan. If Flint Marko just kills some random guy to get his money while the other guy is stealing money and then they take his car...taking the money from the bookie with him. The 10 dollars Flint probably got off of Ben doesn't mean sh**.

Point is, Flint wouldn't kill a guy just so he could run away with less money...makes no sense.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Of course its about the dangers of revenge. But not because Peter is after the wrong guy. It's about Peter learning to take the higher road, like he did with the Goblin after he killed Gwen. The Goblin was certainly guilty and even deserving of revenge. But Peter realized that he'd be going against his own beliefs by killing him. Sam Raimi is obviously tapping into that type of drama.

But remember Spider-Man did not kill Goblin. But who thinks he did, Harry does.

But it doesn't matter what Peter believes, it is what the audience expects. Audience's expect those who commit crimes against you to die. It's part of that "perfect world" logic that fuel action movies. "The Bad men always get theirs".

The point is Flint is a sympathetic character. One who has a sick daughter. To make him Uncle Ben's killer is a mix signal that would only serve to confuse and convolute the movie. He kills Ben so we are suppose to hate him, but he does crimes to save a little girl so we're suppose to like him. Not gonna happen. Remember Doctor Octopus, he did not kill anyone because we were suppose to understand he was not in control. If he had killed [anyone important] that stigma would ruin his character.

Another prime example, the Incredible Hulk. Doesn't ever kill in the Hulk because you cannot kill and be sympathize in a movie such as these. It doesn't work that way.

It would be meaningless if Marko didn't actually shoot Ben.

So is Green Goblin taking the high road in the script review to spare and then save Peter meaningless because Peter in fact did nothing to kill his father.

 

[The Caped Knight]

Some of you need to re-watch your SPIDER-MAN dvds [as well as looking @ the documentaries as Well as listing to the commentaries from both movies] Because some of the stuff I'm reading here is absolute nonsense

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Some of you need to re-watch your SPIDER-MAN dvds [as well as looking @ the documentaries as Well as listing to the commentaries from both movies] Because some of the stuff I'm reading here is absolute nonsense

Yeah, it's like people forget the mugger already had OVER 1000 DOLLARS IN CASH HE JUST STOLE ON HIM. And then say, well the plan was "for Flint to steal the money, and the mugger to get the car and divert the cops". The mugger ALREADY STOLE THE GODDAMN MONEY. Rips hair out

It's pretty obvious what is going on here. The mugger and Flint were accomplices. The Mugger used Flint's gun to shoot Ben. Flint ran off because (like someone who devotes his life to saving his sick daughter would) Flint actually has a heart (no way would they hire Thomas Hayden Church to play just some a**hole mugger) and he did not want people to die so his daughter could live.

The cops found the gun in the car, found it belonged to Flint. Pegged him as the killer. Spider-Man (under Black suit influence) enacts revenge, therefore pushing Flint over the edge.

Flint teams up with Venom, and they try to get back at Spidey.

 

[Dragon]

Then perhaps you should have thought it over for more than ten seconds to get rid of all the GLARING PLOT HOLES IN IT.

That's like "of course this equation is right...it took me ten seconds to think of it"
You just said yourself, they had a plan. If Flint Marko just kills some random guy to get his money while the other guy is stealing money and then they take his car...taking the money from the bookie with him. The 10 dollars Flint probably got off of Ben doesn't mean sh**.

Point is, Flint wouldn't kill a guy just so he could run away with less money...makes no sense.

What the hell are you talking about? How do you know what Marko would do- are you his best friend?

I'm not saying that Marko shoots Ben trying to rob him of cash .

I'm saying Marko specifically shoots Ben because he's trying to steal Ben's car- Ben resists, so Marko shoots him.

Then- he tells "the carjacker" to take the car, while he goes off in the other direction with the loot. Again- carjacker has no, or maybe just a little cash on him and doesn't have the murder weapon on him- so even if he's caught (and he probably wouldn't have been but for Peter) there's no murder charge.

And again- if Marko is actually caught he wasn't inside the wrestling auditorium.

And Marko not being the killer makes less sense.

Regardless, Marko is a dangerous superhuman threat. I guess he doesn't really rob the armored truck, cause all the damage during the chase- Doesn't attack the cops in giant form or trash all the buildings described in the final battle either.

Have you actually seen the first two Spidey films? Each villain has some tragic part to their lives. Osborn was merely trying to save his company. Ock loses everything, including the woman he loves. But they're still guilty of the actual crimes they commit, and pay the price for it with their lives.

The point is that Peter shouldn't be out for revenge. Even if Marko killed Ben, it's only Peter's job to bring him to justice. Not play judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Dragon]

But remember Spider-Man did not kill Goblin.

Harry has nothing to do with my point. I'm saying that Peter is going after a guilty man and realizes it's not his place to kill him. In this movie, it's the same. Peter realizes that he's wrong for trying to kill Marko regardless of Marko's guilt or innocence.

The point is Flint is a sympathetic character. One who has a sick daughter. To make him Uncle Ben's killer is a mix signal that would only serve to confuse and convolute the movie. He kills Ben so we are suppose to hate him, but he does crimes to save a little girl so we're suppose to like him. Not gonna happen. Remember Doctor Octopus, he did not kill anyone because we were suppose to understand he was not in control. If he had killed [anyone important] that stigma would ruin his character.

Ock DID kill people- and attempt to kill people (The doctors/ He tried to kill May, the people on the train). And he was responsible for his wife's death.

And who said Marko is a "sympathetic character"? Certainly no one involved with the film or any of the leaks we've seen. Raimi did say however he wanted a personal connection between Peter and Marko. and why not? All of the other villains have a connection with him, so for Marko to be the main villain, he'd have to have the biggest connection.

That Marko is doing terrible things (like killing Ben) to help his daughter merely makes him conflicted. Not sympathetic.

And note- you're talking about movies with a superhero whose own bad judgement led to his uncle's death. Yet people still sympathize with Peter.

 

[Dragon]

You also should watch it again, because there is a clip where the mugger drops the clip in the gun that would have been used to kill Ben Parker and replaces it with another clip...that might be a clue.

Maybe you should watch CSI or something. The ballistics aren't based on the CLIP . It's based on the gun itself.

 

[Dragon]

So is Green Goblin taking the high road in the script review to spare and then save Peter meaningless because Peter in fact did nothing to kill his father.

No. He's realizing he made a mistake.

And do you hionestly think that the revenge lesson is served by Marko being innocent?

"Peter, you shouldn't seek revenge- because you might go after the wrong person"- yeah. That's deep.

It's about not lowering yourself to their level- just as I won't lower myself to yours.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Are you joking? Of course I know he had money on him in the film.

In Spider-Man 1 the armored truck robbers have guns in their hands in one shot and no weapons in the next. If they don't care about a glaring detail like that, do you think that Raimi and crew care about a detail from a film made 5 years ago?

I seriously doubt Raimi forgets his own film. It's real sad how your theory got owned.

And for someone using the term moron, I guess you missed that i said in my post that the carjecker might have some money on him.

The carjacker only was carrying one bag...you theory still makes completely no sense. So yes you still talked out your ass.

I just rewatched Spider-Man one...it pretty much explains it for you

Note braintrust- that neither Marko or his partner were anticipating a guy with Spider powers interrupting their plan.

Nor did a guy with Spider-powers interrupt their plans, since Spider-Man was not around yet. The cops got to the mugger, just not before Spider-Man dealt with him

If anything here is the answer. The Mugger in Spider-Man one has two guns. One Spider-Man kicks out of his hand in the warehouse. The mugger obviously killed Ben Parker, because he laughs at Spider-Man maskless after he says "you killed my uncle".

The gun found on the attacker was not the one that killed Ben Parker, as it was his second weapon. The other gun belonged to Flint Marko, who most likely fled after Ben Parker was shot because he did not want the Mugger to kill him.

So when the cops found the gun on the carjacker was not a match for the gun that killed Ben Parker, they instead pinned it on his accomplice.

Furthermore, the cops shine the light on Peter as he blocks his face...meaning this whole time they think there was a second guy in the building.

 

[The Kid]

*grabs bowl of popcorn*

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Maybe you should watch CSI or something. The ballistics aren't based on the CLIP . It's based on the gun itself.

Actually clips can make a huge difference, perhaps you should read a book.

And Spider-Man kicks the first gun out of the muggers hand, he pulls a second. That is the one the cops find on his person.

 

[Dragon]

I seriously doubt Raimi forgets his own film. It's real sad how your theory got owned.

Are you nuts? He forgot what happens IN TWO CONNECTING SHOTS OF THE SAME FILM. and for that matter- the carjacker also loses his gun in one shot, then magically has it again.

The carjacker only was carrying one bag...you theory still makes completely no sense. So yes you still talked out your ass.

Yeah. you're right- it's not like he could've dumped the bag..

Nor did a guy with Spider-powers interrupt their plans, since Spider-Man was not around yet. The cops got to the mugger, just not before Spider-Man dealt with him

What were you smoking while watching the movie? The only reason the carjacker stops is because Peter attacks him!! The police don't get close to him. If they were, they'd have arrested him before Peter could get to him in the warehouse.

The mugger obviously killed Ben Parker, because he laughs at Spider-Man maskless after he says "you killed my uncle".

He's laughing because he's about to shoot Peter. Thus the "see ya" with no mention of his guilt or innocence in killing Ben.

The gun found on the attacker was not the one that killed Ben Parker, as it was his second weapon. The other gun belonged to Flint Marko, who most likely fled after Ben Parker was shot because he did not want the Mugger to kill him. So when the cops found the gun on the carjacker was not a match for the gun that killed Ben Parker, they instead pinned it on his accomplice.

That's freakin' hilarious...

Anyway as I'm not the screenwriter for Spidey 3, I'm obvioulsy not saying my scenario is exact. I'ts just that it's easily explained why Marko would've killed Ben, but didn't escape with the carjacker.

 

[Dragon]

Actually clips can make a huge difference, perhaps you should read a book.

And Spider-Man kicks the first gun out of the muggers hand, he pulls a second. That is the one the cops find on his person.

Watch movie again. Peter kicks A KNIFE out of his hand. He drops his gun When Peter slams him into the metal mesh thing. Then he draws the knife and Peter flips, kicking it, and then swing kicks him. He slams into the window AND THE GUN IS MAGICALLY BACK IN HIS HAND.

And "clips making a HUGE DIFFERENCE" means nothing. They test if a gun is a murder weapon based on the unique markings the barrel creates on a slug.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Are you nuts? He forgot what happens IN TWO CONNECTING SHOTS OF THE SAME FILM. and for that matter- the carjacker also loses his gun in one shot, then magically has it again.

It's really sad how convoluted we;ve made your theory at this point. So just drop it and say "I'm wrong", because you are very extremely wrong. The carjacker had the money.

And yes, X-Men managed to remember things in movie one like Wolverine being infused with admantium. Origins are kinda important to characters.

Especially scenes like that one. It would be one thing if they made a plot off of an existing plothole...but not make a plothole.

By the way if you watch the audio commentary by RAIMI and the PRODUCERS they say that this scene in question IS SO INTERGRAL TO THE CHARACTER....yep they forgot all about it

Yeah. you're right- it's not like he could've dumped the bag..

So basically...Your telling everyone here this convoluted story about how his accomplice took the money...but made it look like he didn't...used a gun to shoot Ben Parker. Let the carjacker leave, he runs off without the bag of money. And then what...

Sorry your theory got owned again.

He's laughing because he's about to shoot Peter. Thus the "see ya" with no mention of his guilt or innocence in killing Ben.

Right, hence all the shots to indicate the irony of the situation. No he doesn't say I killed your Uncle because that is exposition which pretty much kills dialogue.

That's freakin' hilarious...

Anyway as I'm not the screenwriter for Spidey 3, I'm obvioulsy not saying my scenario is exact. I'ts just that it's easily explained why Marko would've killed Ben, but didn't escape with the carjacker.

I think you in fact point out the opposite at this point.

 

[Dragon]

It's really sad how convoluted we;ve made your theory at this point. So just drop it and say "I'm wrong", because you are very extremely wrong. The carjacker had the money.

And yes, X-Men managed to remember things in movie one like Wolverine being infused with admantium. Origins are kinda important to characters.

Especially scenes like that one. It would be one thing if they made a plot off of an existing plothole...but not make a plothole.

WTF are you talking about? although it's starting to make sense why you think Marko isn't the killer...

So basically...Your telling everyone here this convoluted story about how his accomplice took the money...but made it look like he didn't...used a gun to shoot Ben Parker. Let the carjacker leave, he runs off without the bag of money. And then what...

Sorry your theory got owned again.

Of course. The carjacker intended to keep the bag as a momento for the occassion. Ben's car too. Nothing like holding onto evidence of a crime.

And Marko going off without the bag didn't mean he didn't have any money.

Right, hence all the shots to indicate the irony of the situation. No he doesn't say I killed your Uncle because that is exposition which pretty much kills dialogue.

So why did he hold the gun to Peter's head? To scratch it?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

WTF are you talking about? although it's starting to make sense why you think Marko isn't the killer...

Your theory is wrong because Marko had no loot on him, sorry

Of course. The carjacker intended to keep the bag as a momento for the occassion.

Can I role my eyes yet.

Ben's car too. Nothing like holding onto evidence of a crime.

He told the bookie, put the money in the bag and threw it at him...I think he could I.D. the bag. And by the way, at the warehouse it's a full bag, the comparison shots show as much. And it wasn't full of sh** like this theory of yours is starting to be.

And Marko going off without the bag didn't mean he didn't have any money.

Well it sure as hell means he doesn't have the money in the bag . Here is what really happened Marko walked up and shot him "because he didn't like his face"...then the mugger came up to him and to atone for his crime he gave the nice man a free car, gas included

So why did he hold the gun to Peter's head? To scratch it?

To shoot him. Because Peter paused, realizing what had happened. You know most people don't laugh when they hold a gun to your head, he was laughing because he too understood the irony of the situation. That's kind of a du'h moment.

Now are you seriously suggesting the whole reason writers did not have him say "I did it" was to justify your theory...which at this point makes less sense than a coin machine...and even less sense than that analogy.

Sorry, your now officially stretching it more than the "Cyclops lives" folks over at the X-Boards. Which was pretty much my entire point to convoluting your theory anyways.

 

[Dragon]

Your theory is wrong because Marko had no loot on him, sorry

Oh. so you've seen Spidey 3 and know what Marko was carrying when he was caught. Gotcha.

Can I role my eyes yet.

Uh.. It'd be a neat trick if you could, as most people roll their eyes.

He told the bookie, put the money in the bag and threw it at him...I think he could I.D. the bag.

Which is why he'd dump it, if that pesky "Human Spider" weren't punching in the windshield of his stolen car.

And by the way, at the warehouse it's a full bag, the comparison shots show as much. And it wasn't full of sh** like this theory of yours is starting to be.

And since again- guns and so forth appear and disappear- this wouldn't be something that Sam & his crew would be losing sleep over. They leave that to folks like yourself.

Well it sure as hell means he doesn't have the money in the bag

Who said he had THE BAG? That's your theory.

Here is what really happened Marko walked up and shot him "because he didn't like his face"...then the mugger came up to him and to atone for his crime he gave the nice man a free car, gas included

Based on your other posts, I have to believe you think that makes sense.

To shoot him. Because Peter paused, realizing what had happened.

Really? didn't someone say that?

You know most people don't laugh when they hold a gun to your head, he was laughing because he too understood the irony of the situation. That's kind of a du'h moment.

Oh. How many people have put guns to your head that you would know whether they laugh or not? And did they change the clip to allow for a ballistics check?

Now are you seriously suggesting the whole reason writers did not have him say "I did it" was to justify your theory...

If I was, I'd be as out there as you. But again- the fact thet you'd take my point and come to this conclusion, explains why you think they'd say that Marko killed Ben and then reverse it later in the movie, just to make it seem like Peter went too far. Of course they wouldn't use his nearly ruining his relationship and attacking Harry to explain that.

And here's another scenario- maybe Marko shoots Ben and his partner double-crosses him and drives off with the money while Marko moves Ben away from the car. Like I said. Many ways to easily explain it.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Here is the photos from the gooddamn SM3...notice no gun, no bag.

This is in sequential order...it's on a wireimage account.
http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=GLS====197373&str=&styp=&sfld=&nbc1=1&sortval=3a&PageNum=3
so if the image does not show up...click the link

Note the mugger in the background.

Cliff collaspses as if hit by something

Marko turns around in the direction a gunshot would have come from.

Marko appears to be looking at Cliff's chest.

Cliff appears to be falling over.

One appears after of the mugger in the car.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

And since again- guns and so forth appear and disappear- this wouldn't be something that Sam & his crew would be losing sleep over. They leave that to folks like yourself.



Who said he had THE BAG? That's your theory.

The FIVE MINUTE SCENE in the movie.

The fact that Raimi said he was not going to do a Joker-Burton thing with Spider-Man.

The fact that the producer doing the commentary during the mugger scene says this "scene is so intergral to the character".

He had the bag get over it. Raimi would loss sleep over it, because unlike you posting on here, he actually gets paid. Money is going to make sure his writers and producers make a story that makes sense.

The fact that two posters told you to watch the movie and called your theory nonsense.

The fact that even the pictures released of Spider-Man 3 show Flint Marko without anything in his hands.

The fact that your cockamamy theory rested on Flint having the loot, which was proven false.

You lost two pages ago...go to bed.

 

[Dragon]

Oh. So Marko is just punching Ben in the spot where he got shot. Of course.

Here's an idea- THOSE AREN'T THE ACTUAL CAMERA ANGLES. Those are from the vantage point of the Wire Image photographer. JEEZ!!!!!