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

[The Joker]

Does anyone else find it odd that a) not a single photo looks remotely like a muggering and b) in the trailer he knows who Ben Parker is.

I'm sure he found out later on the name of the man he murdered.

As for the pics, they look like they're trying to force Ben to give up his car or something. He obviously refuses, so he gets shot.

 

[Dragon]

I'm sure he found out later on the name of the man he murdered.

As for the pics, they look like they're trying to force Ben to give up his car or something. He obviously refuses, so he gets shot.

Exactly. There'd be news reports saying Ben's name and when, where and why he was shot.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I'm sure he found out later on the name of the man he murdered.

As for the pics, they look like they're trying to force Ben to give up his car or something. He obviously refuses, so he gets shot.

But it's not like he is holding up his other arm. No eviedence in any shots he is carrying a gun. The carjacker comes up behind them both.

If [they are in on it together - which even that I am starting to doubt] then it almost looks as though he is trying to distract Ben, or talk to him calmly. Ben doesn't appear to be putting up a whole lot of resistence. I and the wireimage accound I put up shows images from when the scene began to when they broke. And the only guy we ever see with a gun (and those wireimage guys never bothered to photograph what Flint Marko's gun was...nor does he appear to have one). However the photographer shows several photos of the carjacker (who appears to be getting impatient with Marko) brandising a weapon.

What if (since Marko is not in the car...yet is there at the EXACT SAME TIME AS THE CARJACKER) Marko is in charge of getting the car BEFORE the carjacker gets out (obviously he failed at this). The carjacker gets impatient, shoots Ben from inside the vehicle and drives off.

Now Spider-Man is not CSI (nor are they accurate anyways), so by eyewitness reports everyone in the park sees Ben fall over with Flint standing over him him following a gun shot. So who do people peg as the shooter, Flint. Who ends up with Ben's blood on him, Flint.

He said he wasn't going to do a Burton-Joker thing. However as someone points out, Peter is the only one who really knows what happened that night. Hence the symbiote, it clouds his judgement. All the cops ever had was a dead body, no confession, no gun on his person(assuming they found the one upstairs...which maybe they did not), a bag of money, and that's it.

As for him knowing his name...you guys are really stretching these theories of yours farther than Redd Richards. It's obvious Peter and Flint conversation is most likely been recut for the trailer. To make it sound like Peter question is being answered. Flint could easily be responding to something else Parker said.

The point of the film again is revenge. Harry is going after the WRONG MAN for the death of his father. Eddie Brock becomes the victim of the suit which actually caused him to hate Peter Parker in the first place (remember he hates Peter for all the things he did...such as hook up with Gwen...that he did while possessed). The whole point of the movie is how revenge clouds our judgement.

As people point out, watch the first film...all the evidence you need is right there.

 

[Spider Man]

First off, if you'd read my previous posts- you'd see I said that the carjacker might've also left Marko. Secondly- it's far more ridiculous to believe that the carjacker, who had a gun, took Marko's gun, shot Ben (When in the Wire image shots it's clear that Marko is shooting Ben) Marko took back his gun and got left- and kept the murder weapon.

The Wire image doesn't make it clear at all! It's merely Marko looking into Ben's eyes. You can't see the gun in Flint's hand and it doesn't even look as though he's trying to kill him. Who's to say that Marko was left with a gun at all let alone taking it back from Marko?

Do you know anything about Spider-Man? Because the point isn't that he was going to kill the wrong man- IT'S THAT HE WAS GOING TO KILL ANYONE.

Spider-man does not kill. In the films' he's never taken a life. Every villain dies of their own actions. Again, in the comics we learned this when he wouldn't kill the Goblin, even though he was absolutely guilty of killing Gwen.

In the case of Marko, despite his killing Ben, Peter should only be out to bring him to justice. NOT KILL HIM. That's the lesson he learns.

Don't patronize me. Of course I know that Peter isn't going to kill anyone. But symbiote drives him farther than he would normally go. You're right, Peter SHOULD be out to bring him to justice, but under the influence of the Symbiote he's driven farther than his conscience would normally allow him.

You're wrong. Spidey's first encounter with Sandman is in the red suit. And Spidey learns about Marko killing Ben before he gets the symbiote. That's why he's sleeping in his costume when the symbiote attaches itself to him. Because he's obsessively searching for Marko.

Fine, his first encounter isn't with the black suit, but you notice that when he questions Marko in the Subway he's Symbiote Spidey. Are you trying to tell me that they are going to completely ignore the aspect of Spider-Man and that the symbiote only takes over his life as Peter? Give me a break.

And Peter's being taken over by the costume isn't merely presented by his wanting to kill Marko. It's also because of how he treats MJ, Gwen and how he deals with Harry.

The vessel they use to make Sandman sympathetic is with his daughter. He killed Ben trying to save her. And maybe Marko feels remorse for killing Ben.

Really? I hadn't noticed. MJ, Gwen, all part of Peter's darker story, Marko, Harry, part of Spidey's while you can argue Harry is also part of Pete. I know the symbiote doesn't just take over Spidey, it's also Peter, but that's not even the point.

Yes, the daughter is the vessel, but I don't agree about the killing. Marko feels remorse for the death of Ben because the mugger did it and he was involved with the plan. He didn't want to harm anyone he just wanted the money (You could even argue that he was reasoning with Ben in the Wire image, trying to get him to just give him the car and Ben perhaps reasoning back, because you can't tell me he's shooting him. Get Real). The mugger shoots him, takes off, and now Marko feels horrible. Not only because he didn't get any cash, but because a man is dead because of it.

Captain Stacy says: "We have some new information- THIS IS YOUR UNCLE'S ACTUAL KILLER".

That's pretty frickin' definite.

And there's no need for misdirection with Marko, because that isn't the important twist in the film.

There's no need for misdirection? So, a movie is allowed one twist and one twist only.

I'd like to see what evidence Capt. Stacy pulls out as his support, if he even provides any in the scene. The plot device is still applicable, until we get a reveal from Marko later. We still don't have a motivation for Marko to attack Spider-Man. (Because he's getting in the way? Eh. )

 

[Prodigy]

it's not that there's no twist allowed... but everyone keeps going on and on about how raimi is just messing with the fans, or sony is just doing this and that. when have they EVER... EVER EVER EVER EVER intentionally misdirected ANYONE with anything from the movies. a complete, blatant, obvious to the public misdirection, like that in the trailer. they realize there are spider-man fans... but there's a whole world of people out there that will be seeing this movie that aren't fans of the comic. such tunnel vision, I swear ... the world is not nearly as complicated as some comic fans make it

 

[Spider Man]

it's not that there's no twist allowed... but everyone keeps going on and on about how raimi is just messing with the fans, or sony is just doing this and that. when have they EVER... EVER EVER EVER EVER intentionally misdirected ANYONE with anything from the movies. a complete, blatant, obvious to the public misdirection, like that in the trailer. they realize there are spider-man fans... but there's a whole world of people out there that will be seeing this movie that aren't fans of the comic. such tunnel vision, I swear ... the world is not nearly as complicated as some comic fans make it

I think they were usually referring to Venom..."He's not in it because Sony wouldn't..." or "Raimi said he hates Venom so..."

In the context of the movie having this plot twist hits almost the same vein as Peter seeing the Mugger's face in the first movie. It's a realization point, and hopefully near the point where he realizes that the symbiote has truly driven him over the edge.

But hey, if Sandman IS the real killer, we would have been intentionally misdirected in believing that the Mugger did the killing.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

it's not that there's no twist allowed... but everyone keeps going on and on about how raimi is just messing with the fans, or sony is just doing this and that. when have they EVER... EVER EVER EVER EVER intentionally misdirected ANYONE with anything from the movies. a complete, blatant, obvious to the public misdirection, like that in the trailer. they realize there are spider-man fans... but there's a whole world of people out there that will be seeing this movie that aren't fans of the comic. such tunnel vision, I swear ... the world is not nearly as complicated as some comic fans make it

Batman Begins, for example, gave no indication that Ra's Al Ghul was really Liam Neison.

Ask yourself this, when has there ever been a major twist is Spider-Man let alone a reason to misdirect anyone. True, there is no reason for him to stick to the comics...but hasn't he? Most of the origins thus far, most of the general storyline, most of the plot is all comic book based. Venom's origin, Harry taking revenge on Pete, Sandman gaining his powers, Doctor Octopus fusing with his arms, Green Goblin becoming that way from fumes, even Peter Parker's origin as Spider-Man...all correct, even moreso than Batman Begins which closely ties everything to Ra's (and removes a lot for time reasons).

At the end of the day it's a lot harder to explain Flint Marko's character as the killer. A man who has quams about stealing cars but not about killing . Or someone who has quams about killing but not about stealing. It seems to me Flint is very much a victim of circumstance, just like Peter, just like Harry, just like Eddie, just like MJ and just like most people in Raimi's movies. Also he never once strikes you as a killer, with that scared look on his face. That calm, almost reasoning look on his face with Ben.

I agree with Spider-Man those wireimages paint a different story...so does Spider-Man 1

 

[Idiotic Idiot06]

Sorry for the delay but...

Spoiler

Proof that the bags are meant to hold money.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Yeah most of us knew that already.

Hey if he is the killer...everyoone who says he wasn't is (as Spider_Man) points out, misdirected by the first movie.

 

[Prodigy]

Batman Begins, for example, gave no indication that Ra's Al Ghul was really Liam Neison.

Ask yourself this, when has there ever been a major twist is Spider-Man let alone a reason to misdirect anyone. True, there is no reason for him to stick to the comics...but hasn't he? Most of the origins thus far, most of the general storyline, most of the plot is all comic book based. Venom's origin, Harry taking revenge on Pete, Sandman gaining his powers, Doctor Octopus fusing with his arms, Green Goblin becoming that way from fumes, even Peter Parker's origin as Spider-Man...all correct, even moreso than Batman Begins which closely ties everything to Ra's (and removes a lot for time reasons).

At the end of the day it's a lot harder to explain Flint Marko's character as the killer. A man who has quams about stealing cars but not about killing . Or someone who has quams about killing but not about stealing. It seems to me Flint is very much a victim of circumstance, just like Peter, just like Harry, just like Eddie, just like MJ and just like most people in Raimi's movies. Also he never once strikes you as a killer, with that scared look on his face. That calm, almost reasoning look on his face with Ben.

I agree with Spider-Man those wireimages paint a different story...so does Spider-Man 1

why are you talking about Batman Begins. I said nothing of Warner Bros, Batman, Christopher Nolan, anything.

Sam Raimi said this movie takes the most liberties from the comics and is furthest from them. he also obviously likes there to be connections between peter and the villain. just because flint kills him and doesn't take the car doesn't mean ANYTHING. ****ING ANYTHING. what if he killed him to get the car, and god forbid, they talk or engage in conversation and split up. and one person takes the car and flint flees on foot. or they argue over the car and the carjacker leaves flint behind. I mean... use your imagination.

 

[Spider Man]

Prodigy...there are several probable possibilities, but it's going to rely on what works best for the plot. Marko killing Ben or not killing?

The latter, IMO.

 

[stillanerd]

I've been saying all along that the carjacker had the money. My point- is that if Sam Raimi let slip things like the carjacker's gun being knocked out of his hand and then magically reappearing in the next shot, he's not going to care about what would amount to a minor point in a film released 5 years later. You know the term for it stillanerd- in comics we call it a RETCON. The overall movie audience won't give a crap.

And yes- I DID say that they might have divided the money. Or maybe they didn't. I also said that maybe the carjacker double-crossed Marko and left him while he was moving Ben's body. It doesn't matter. None of this means that Marko wouldn't have shot Ben to get his car.

Secondly, I've also been saying that the scenario which I made up in all of ten seconds wouldn't be accurate. i'm just saying it's a simple explanation as to why Marko would've shot Ben, and not been with the carjacker when Peter caught up to him.

Well, with all of the back-and-forth arguing over whether or not the carjacker had the money or whether Marko took off with it, whether Marko had a gun or didn't have a gun, or the carjacker switched guns or carried two guns, I just got lost because sifting through all the anal-retentativeness going on.

And yes, I know this whole Marko was actually there with the burglar and may have been the real killer is a retcon, and maybe the audience won't care about it. But there certainly will be some more discerning movie goers, and not just comic book fans, who will go "Wait a minute? If the guy Peter let go didn't kill Uncle Ben, then why should Peter feel guilty anymore? Didn't he choose to become a superhero because his own irresponsibility lead to his uncle's death?" Certainly, you know there are going to be movie critics--some of whom aren't particularly comic fans--who will point this out. This isn't like organic webbing or MJ being the love of his life or Doc Ock being controlled by his arms and what not; this is a matter of storytelling, as all three movies are linked and essentially part of one big story. To have Flint Marko kill Uncle Ben instead of the carjacker ruins that story-telling arc in the sense because it's basically saying that moment where Peter truly became Spider-Man was inconsequencial, much less undermines an integral part of what makes Spider-Man, as a character, Spider-Man.

Thing is, though, you're probably right about Flint Marko being the real killer; Raimi certainly wouldn't have introduced that plot point for no reason. However, it's jsut as easy to say that, considering how what we've been hearing about Sandman is that he's only a thief by circumstance because he's trying to care for his ailing child, I agree with some posters that it would be really hard pressed to have him be a sympathetic villain while also being the murderer of Spidey's uncle. Him being mistaken by the police for the crime would fit into that and, because Spidey mistakenly thinks he's the real killer, Flint becomes an even more dangerous criminal as a result, which would tie-in with the whole "revenge" theme the movie is playing with, in that Spidey's actions have actually made Flint more evil than he originally was. At least that's how I hope it plays out. Course, I'd rather have Sandman not be invovled with Uncle Ben's death at all but, what are you going to do?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Sam Raimi said this movie takes the most liberties from the comics and is furthest from them. he also obviously likes there to be connections between peter and the villain.

Well considering the black costume comes from the "Secret Wars", Harry and Sandman are not involved in the Venom saga. Gwen appears before MJ and should be dead by this point. Eddie Brock is not a bodybuilder. And Harry doesn't dawn his father's costume I'd say I'd have to agree with Raimi statement (which you showed no proof of).

what if he killed him to get the car, and god forbid, they talk or engage in conversation and split up. and one person takes the car and flint flees on foot. or they argue over the car and the carjacker leaves flint behind. I mean... use your imagination.

The point is with all this "use of imagination" we've come up with plots far more complicated and far more convoluted than if we go with Spider Man or My own theories. Flint, if he is involved, which he seems to be...obviously is not killing Ben Parker in any of those images...let alone shooting him. Get real if you think otherwise.

Maybe your right, maybe he did kill him...but don't you think if they wanted to do this they'd make the story a lot more sound. As we've pointed out there is some pretty huge MISDIRECTION in film one.

Raimi certainly cares about how returing would feel about his plot and execution of the movie. If I have to "use my imagination" to come up with some elaborate explanation for all that we have seen thus far that means the audience is going to be as befuddled as confused by the plot as I am with the batf*** crazy theories you guys have presented.

So then, you and Dragon make the arguement he doesn't care. He must suck at making movies then.

He obviously did not enter this plot point for no reason, it's what drives Peter over the edge, clouds his judgment. But that doesn't mean it has to be true. In fact I'd be downright crushed to find out what drove me to violence was a lie. However, Peter just the same would be downright crushed to find out what made him Spider-Man was a lie.

Furthermore part of the need for Superheroes is the idea that the justice system is broken. If the authorities are able to find Spider-Man's mugger, but Spider-man is unable to do it himself. Then Spider-Man is the one doing an ineffective job, and actually causing more injustice than they are.

 

[Spider Man]

Him being mistaken by the police for the crime would fit into that and, because Spidey mistakenly thinks he's the real killer, Flint becomes an even more dangerous criminal as a result, which would tie-in with the whole "revenge" theme the movie is playing with, in that Spidey's actions have actually made Flint more evil than he originally was. At least that's how I hope it plays out.

This is basically what we're getting at. It just seems like the best route to take, without being contradictory to Spider-Man's origin story. As ShadowBoxer explains:

He obviously did not enter this plot point for no reason, it's what drives Peter over the edge, clouds his judgment. But that doesn't mean it has to be true. In fact I'd be downright crushed to find out what drove me to violence was a lie. However, Peter just the same would be downright crushed to find out what made him Spider-Man was a lie.

Furthermore part of the need for Superheroes is the idea that the justice system is broken. If the authorities are able to find Spider-Man's mugger, but Spider-man is unable to do it himself. Then Spider-Man is the one doing an ineffective job, and actually causing more injustice than they are.

 

[Karea07]

I love that idea, but it may just be as simple as they have it in the trailer.

 

[Dragon]

Well, with all of the back-and-forth arguing over whether or not the carjacker had the money or whether Marko took off with it, whether Marko had a gun or didn't have a gun, or the carjacker switched guns or carried two guns, I just got lost because sifting through all the anal-retentativeness going on.

And yes, I know this whole Marko was actually there with the burglar and may have been the real killer is a retcon, and maybe the audience won't care about it. But there certainly will be some more discerning movie goers, and not just comic book fans, who will go "Wait a minute? If the guy Peter let go didn't kill Uncle Ben, then why should Peter feel guilty anymore? Didn't he choose to become a superhero because his own irresponsibility lead to his uncle's death?" Certainly, you know there are going to be movie critics--some of whom aren't particularly comic fans--who will point this out. This isn't like organic webbing or MJ being the love of his life or Doc Ock being controlled by his arms and what not; this is a matter of storytelling, as all three movies are linked and essentially part of one big story. To have Flint Marko kill Uncle Ben instead of the carjacker ruins that story-telling arc in the sense because it's basically saying that moment where Peter truly became Spider-Man was inconsequencial, much less undermines an integral part of what makes Spider-Man, as a character, Spider-Man.

Thing is, though, you're probably right about Flint Marko being the real killer; Raimi certainly wouldn't have introduced that plot point for no reason. However, it's jsut as easy to say that, considering how what we've been hearing about Sandman is that he's only a thief by circumstance because he's trying to care for his ailing child, I agree with some posters that it would be really hard pressed to have him be a sympathetic villain while also being the murderer of Spidey's uncle. Him being mistaken by the police for the crime would fit into that and, because Spidey mistakenly thinks he's the real killer, Flint becomes an even more dangerous criminal as a result, which would tie-in with the whole "revenge" theme the movie is playing with, in that Spidey's actions have actually made Flint more evil than he originally was. At least that's how I hope it plays out. Course, I'd rather have Sandman not be invovled with Uncle Ben's death at all but, what are you going to do?

First- who says that Marko is going to be a sympathetic villain? No one involved with the film. This is a leap that fans are taking. Raimi is old school.
He wasn't reading comics when Sandman was a good guy (Which sucked anyway). He was reading when Sandman was a straight-up menace. All that is apparent is that, as with Ock, they're giving Sandman some depth by not making him merely about getting money. So they add the daughter. But as with Ock, and Osborn for that matter, all indications still make it clear that he's a criminal, does bad things and will ultimately pay the price for that. If indeed he were sympathetic he could certainly find other ways to use his powers without robbing or causing the massive damage he does. If he were sympathetic, he could easily escape the police without smashing them as seen in the trailer.

Anyone pushing this sympathetic angle needs to back this up in some way.

Secondly- Raimi wants to push Peter to the edge. That what's important. The message of revenge is wrong would be meaningless if Sandman weren't guilty. If he weren't then the only point would be- it's okay to take revenge as long as you're sure the guy is guilty.

The point is- REVENGE IS WRONG PERIOD. This can only be driven home if Sandman is actually guilty.

Peter realizes that the suit is pushing him too far on more than just the levle of dealing with Sandman. He's ruining all of his relationships and his life as Spider-Man by becoming cruel. If anything, Sandman being innocent of killing Ben would water down the message they're trying to present.

 

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by ShadowBoxer
He obviously did not enter this plot point for no reason, it's what drives Peter over the edge, clouds his judgment. But that doesn't mean it has to be true. In fact I'd be downright crushed to find out what drove me to violence was a lie. However, Peter just the same would be downright crushed to find out what made him Spider-Man was a lie.

How silly. What made him Spider-Man isn't A LIE. The Carjacker was at least culpable in Ben's death. And the point isn't who shot Ben. The point is that Peter has the power to protect the innocent and he has to use it. If Peter had stopped the robbery in the auditorium, Marko would've had no reason to shoot Ben. He'd have seen his partner caught and walked away.

Furthermore part of the need for Superheroes is the idea that the justice system is broken. If the authorities are able to find Spider-Man's mugger, but Spider-man is unable to do it himself. Then Spider-Man is the one doing an ineffective job, and actually causing more injustice than they are.

Again, very wrong. The point of superheroes isn't about the justice system being broken, otherwise they'd kill the villains. They beat them and turn them over to the justice system for punishment, so they must have some faith in the justice system.

The point of superheroes is suing your gifts for mankind's betterment. They handle the problems that the police etc. are not able to handle.

 

[The Joker]

Secondly- Raimi wants to push Peter to the edge. That what's important. The message of revenge is wrong would be meaningless if Sandman weren't guilty. If he weren't then the only point would be- it's okay to take revenge as long as you're sure the guy is guilty.

The point is- REVENGE IS WRONG PERIOD. This can only be driven home if Sandman is actually guilty.

Exactly.

Raimi echoes the theme of the movie thru the conflict Peter is facing personally, and the villain usually represents the dark side of that theme.

In SM-1, it was choosing the path of the hero, by using great power with great responsibility. Goblin was using his power in the wrong way, by saving his company by killing off the competition and the board members who were trying to sell him out. Then he tried to make Spider-Man go down that dark path too, because he recognized that he and Spider-Man were similar in that they were both beings of great power. But of course, Peter stayed true to the path of the hero.

In SM-2, it was about scarifice. Sacrificing what you want the most to do what is right. Peter was tired of the burden of being Spider-Man, due to all the negative effects it was having on his life. He wanted a normal life. But he had to sacrifice that, to do what is right. To be the hero. Ock was refusing to sacrifice his dream, and was using his power to make his dream succeed, regardless of what evil things he had to do to make it happen. Again, not using great power with great responsibility.

In SM-3, revenge is the theme. Peter will learn that it is a poison that turns you into something ugly. And he'll realize that thru his hatred for Sandman, and what he did to Ben.

 

[BrollySupersj]

Everyone is already saying that Flint Marko as Ben Parker's murderer is a leap in logic, and I also agree. Obviously, Raimi is setting up the Sandman/Spider-Man conflict as a case of mistaken identity, whereby Peter Parker will feel even more guilty for abusing his powers to exact vengeance on the wrong man.

If you watch the trailers closely, you'll notice that Flint Marko is holding up shopping bags before he gets confronted by Spidey in the black suit. What kind of villian runs around errands, no doubt for his family? Also, the teaser poster featuring Sandman is of him protecting a child holding a stuffed animal. So he is obviously not a "villian" in this picture.

And lastly, the final shot of the Sandman in the Theatrical trailer is of him reaching out for help as he gets drowned in a torrent of water. Obviously, we are meant to sympathize with the Sandman character, and his persecution at the hands of the Black Suit serves further to villianize the symbiote and Peter's actions while under the influence of his new alien powers.

Adieu.

I am a detective, Adieu.

Wow...if thats true...then I already feel sad

 

[stillanerd]

First- who says that Marko is going to be a sympathetic villain? No one involved with the film. This is a leap that fans are taking. Raimi is old school.

He wasn't reading comics when Sandman was a good guy (Which sucked anyway). He was reading when Sandman was a straight-up menace. All that is apparent is that, as with Ock, they're giving Sandman some depth by not making him merely about getting money. So they add the daughter. But as with Ock, and Osborn for that matter, all indications still make it clear that he's a criminal, does bad things and will ultimately pay the price for that. If indeed he were sympathetic he could certainly find other ways to use his powers without robbing or causing the massive damage he does. If he were sympathetic, he could easily escape the police without smashing them as seen in the trailer.

Anyone pushing this sympathetic angle needs to back this up in some way.

Don't misunderstand, Dragon, it's quite apparent that we are supposed to see Sandman as the bad guy. However, the very notion that the filmmakers have chosen to give him a sick daughter and that he's originally committing crimes to get money to pay for medical bills and what not does give him a degree of sympathy, sort of a watered-down version Jean Valljean. And if he has a sick child that needs to be cured, well he may have the attitude that he's not going to let anything stand in his way to ensure the life of his child, which of course blinds him to the actions he in fact that he is the bad guy, much like Spidey will be blinded by his own personal revenge against him. And if he's actually innocent of the murder of Uncle Ben, that serves to add to this, in that he ironically becomes the very thing he was falsely accused of. Also, Raimi, in the past two films, didn't make the villain totally unsympathetic either while at the same time clearly made them villains.

Secondly- Raimi wants to push Peter to the edge. That what's important. The message of revenge is wrong would be meaningless if Sandman weren't guilty. If he weren't then the only point would be- it's okay to take revenge as long as you're sure the guy is guilty.

The point is- REVENGE IS WRONG PERIOD. This can only be driven home if Sandman is actually guilty.

That's a good point. Like I said, earlier somewhere, I understand what Raimi is apparently trying to do. And there is an argument for saying that even though Marko may be the real killer, he's still an accomplice of the thief/carjacker and that if Spidey had caught the theif/carjacker then Marko wouldn't have had to kill Uncle Ben in order to steal the car. However, this still dimishes the idea that Peter let go of the very person who ended up killing his uncle, thus making his choice to fight crime a far more personal, guilt-driven, and realistic and complex motivation, which is what Stan Lee was striving for. Besides, if Sandman turns out to not have pulled the trigger, he's still, under the law, just as guilty as the guy who pulled the trigger because he was an accomplice in the robbery/carjacking. Course, you could say the same thing about carjacker as well, but then again why bother complicating matters.

Peter realizes that the suit is pushing him too far on more than just the levle of dealing with Sandman. He's ruining all of his relationships and his life as Spider-Man by becoming cruel. If anything, Sandman being innocent of killing Ben would water down the message they're trying to present.

Not necessarily. If Sandman did not kill Uncle Ben, but Peter, convinced by the evidence against him, blinded by his need to avenge his uncle, and the suit feeding those emotions, takes his vengence out on Sandman, it would make it all the worse because his desire for revenge blinded him of the truth, which is what revenge does. In turn, if Sandman survives the attack on him by black-costumed Spidey, this would ironically, moreso than being caught in the particle accelerator, make him into the very monster Spidey mistakeningly thought he was because of his desire for paypack against Spidey. It would also tie-in well with Eddie Brock's growing resentment towards Peter when he becomes Venom in that he wants revenge against Peter for moving in on Gwen when, in actuality, Peter still loves MJ and the suit was only fueling Peter's supefical attraction for Gwen. Not to mention Harry's desire for revenge against Peter for his belief that Peter killed his father, when of course we know he did not. Again, these two storylines, plus the Spider-Man vs. Sandman one would illustrate the common theme: revenge is not only wrong, it blinds people to the truth.

 

[Spider Man]

Not necessarily. If Sandman did not kill Uncle Ben but Peter, convinced by the evidence against him, blinded by his need to avenge his uncle, and the suit feeding those emotions, would make it all the worse because his desire for revenge blinded him of the truth, which is what revenge does. In turn, if Sandman survives the attack on him by black-costumed Spidey, would ironically make him the very monster Spidey mistakeningly thought he was. It would also tie-in well with Eddie Brock's growing resentment towards Peter when he becomes Venom in that he wants revenge against Peter for moving in on Gwen when, in actuality, Peter still loves MJ and the suit was only fueling Peter's supefical attraction for Gwen. Not to mention Harry's desire for revenge against Peter for his belief that Peter killed his father, when of course we know he did not. Again, these two storylines, plus the Spider-Man vs. Sandman one would illustrate the common theme: revenge is not only wrong, it blinds people of the truth.

Quoted For (Motha' Effing) Truth!

This guy gets it. It's not about Peter doing the right thing...it's about Peter being unable to see what the right thing is because he's blinded by his own revenge and is driven farther by the symbiote.

 

[stillanerd]

It's not about Peter doing the right thing...it's about Peter being unable to see what the right thing is because he's blinded by his own revenge and is driven farther by the symbiote.

Exactly right. And I couldn't have said it any better than that.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

i can understand why sam made flint marko uncle bens killer, think about it, its not that bad if marko is uncle bens killer, marko and uncle bens killer must have made a plan to rob the place and steal somebodys car, and uncle ben was there at the wrong time, shotting somebody is worse than robbing, tge police thought that uncle bens killer shot uncle ben and stole the car, but, marko was really the one who shot uncle ben, that is one of the reasons why this movie is about revenge, the symbiote makes peter want to get revenge even more, it make him more hungery for revenge and wants to kill marko, you saw the way he reacted in the police station, he was mad.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I agree with the first post

 

[Dragon]

Don't misunderstand, Dragon, it's quite apparent that we are supposed to see Sandman as the bad guy. However, the very notion that the filmmakers have chosen to give him a sick daughter and that he's originally committing crimes to get money to pay for medical bills and what not does give him a degree of sympathy, sort of a watered-down version Jean Valljean. And if he has a sick child that needs to be cured, well he may have the attitude that he's not going to let anything stand in his way to ensure the life of his child, which of course blinds him to the actions he in fact that he is the bad guy, much like Spidey will be blinded by his own personal revenge against him. And if he's actually innocent of the murder of Uncle Ben, that serves to add to this, in that he ironically becomes the very thing he was falsely accused of. Also, Raimi, in the past two films, didn't make the villain totally unsympathetic either while at the same time clearly made them villains.

Raimi didn't make them unsympathetic, but they still committed terrible crimes and ultimately had to pay for their crimes.

But moreover- This isn't Sandman's story. It's Peter's. This isn't Parker vs. Marko, where their comparitive lives drives the narrative. The focus isn't going to be on Marko and his caring for his daughter. He's merely a component to show us Peter's journey. So his being innocent of killing Ben has no value to Peter's story. Peter's story is better served with his being guilty. There's no choice on Peter's part if Marko is innocent. There is a choice if Marko is guilty. He could decide to surrender himself to his baser instincts and kill him.

And- If Sandman were this noble sympathetic character that some of you believe, his first instinct would be to do something good with his abilities. Even Peter, who while initially using his powers selfishly knew there was a point he would not sink to. He could have taken the money he'd rightfully won from the wrestling promoter, but didn't.

Sandman isn't stealing a crust of bread to eat. He's committing major crimes. So the very fact that Sandman still resorts to crime and violence already represents him as a character that isn't very sympathetic. That he has a daughter who he loves doesn't make it okay to do as he does. The armored truck robbery would likely be enough to pay for his daughter's care, or at least put her on the right track.

There's nothing to indicate as you mention that Sandman EVER attempts to do what's right. Nothing displayed showing that he tries not to hurt anyone and only does so as a last resort. If this were the approach, Sandman would make a turnaround at some point, which he never does. And if this were the slant, we'd have heard something from those who've leaked so much other information.

There are numerous indicators that he will immediately do what's wrong, which strengthens the point of his being Ben's killer.

Also- note that the filming of the shooting was seen. If indeed this was merely an hallucination generated by the symbiote, wouldn't they have shot a scene showing "the truth" where Marko isn't the one shooting Ben?

That's a good point. Like I said, earlier somewhere, I understand what Raimi is apparently trying to do. And there is an argument for saying that even though Marko may be the real killer, he's still an accomplice of the thief/carjacker and that if Spidey had caught the theif/carjacker then Marko wouldn't have had to kill Uncle Ben in order to steal the car.

Actually I made that argument above.

However, this still dimishes the idea that Peter let go of the very person who ended up killing his uncle, thus making his choice to fight crime a far more personal, guilt-driven, and realistic and complex motivation, which is what Stan Lee was striving for.

Not at all. Stan's story was poetic. But in the larger scheme of things it doesn't matter that THE ONE CRIMINAL Peter let go is THE ONE who kills Ben.
Even if Ben had lived, Peter was supposed to use his powers for the greater good. It would be ridiculous to think that only the death of Ben wouild lead Peter to become a crime fighter. The burglar could have killed any bystander on the street. Peter would feel no less guilty. Ben had already taught him about what comes with great power. Peter merely momentarily forgot it, and paid the price. Also, Ben's death was not just about leading Peter to his mission. It was an indicator of his life's path. That it would be fraught with tragedy. His greatest enemy being the father of his best friend is another example. The death of Captain Stacy is another. The death of Gwen is another. Even when Peter does what's right he suffers.

Besides, if Sandman turns out to not have pulled the trigger, he's still, under the law, just as guilty as the guy who pulled the trigger because he was an accomplice in the robbery/carjacking.

Not necessarily. If Sandman did not kill Uncle Ben but Peter, convinced by the evidence against him, blinded by his need to avenge his uncle, and the suit feeding those emotions, would make it all the worse because his desire for revenge blinded him of the truth, which is what revenge does.

So again, you're still saying that revenge is okay unless it's against the wrong person. The TRUTH isn't that Peter is seeking revenge against someone innocent. The TRUTH is that revenge is always wrong. There's no need for further underscoring by making Marko innocent. Revenge is wrong even if Marko is guilty.

In turn, if Sandman survives the attack on him by black-costumed Spidey, would ironically make him the very monster Spidey mistakeningly thought he was.

Or if he's guilty, he's merely acting on his baser instincts and revealing that at his heart, his crimes weren't for his daughter, but to fulfill his own needs. which we know because again- if it were only for his daughter, he wouldn't have to commit crimes on the level he does. He could slip in and out of bank vaults without harming anyone. But he chooses to be destructive throughout, even before Spidey defeats him.

Not to mention Harry's desire for revenge against Peter for his belief that Peter killed his father, when of course we know he did not. Again, these two storylines, plus the Spider-Man vs. Sandman one would illustrate the common theme: revenge is not only wrong, it blinds people of the truth.

But there's no need for a parallel. These stories aren't about Harry, Eddie and certainly not Marko. They're about Peter. They're always about him taking the higher road. Not merely the level playing field. It doesn't matter what revenge might blind him to- It only matters that he never consider revenge an option at all.