Dragon said:
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.
Just because Sandman would have sympathetic traits doesn't make him less of a villain. After all, like you said this is Spider-Man's story, so it's more about the effect it has on Peter. And yes, if Sandman is guilty and Spider-Man chooses not to take his revenge on Sandman then yes it does get across the idea that revenge is wrong regardless. However, what I'm saying is not being the one who pulled the trigger and Spidey seeking revenge on Marko makes it all the more powerful of a story, especially when you have two other stories (Harry seeking revenge against Peter for the death of his father, Eddie seeking revenge against Peter for "stealing" Gwen--both of which Peter would not be entirely at fault) ties together quite well. Just a healthy disagreement.
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.
Hey, I never said anything about him being noble. And in a way, it would tie-in with Peter using his powers initially for his own needs; besides, Sandman, if he has a sick child, DOES think he's doing good when in fact he's not because he's actually harming more people by committing crime than he is by helping his daughter. Again, blinded my his own needs rather than what he ought to do, sort of like Spidey being blinded by revenge. And by the way, Peter DID sink to selfishness by allowing the theif to steal from the wrestling promoter, which ended up costing his uncle's life, which of course I don't need to tell you.
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.
Again, I'm acknowledging the fact that he IS a criminal and that, even though he may believe he's doing this for the best of his kid,
it's still wrong. Also, according to that one leaked summary from several months ago, it also says that there's a point in which his own daughter is even tells her daddy that what he's doing is wrong, so there could be a point where, like Doc Ock having a change of heart at the end, Sandman could do the same thing. The idea I'm thinking of is that, because of Spidey's desire for revenge, it makes Sandman even
more dangerous whereas before he was just a common criminal trying to steal for his kid, he becomes the very monster Spidey sees him as because Spidey tried to take revenge on him, even going as far as possibily teaming up with Venom and kidnapping MJ, Gwen, or both. At least that's what I'm thinking could happen.
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?
Actually, I will agree that I don't think this is a "hallucination" generated by the symbiote but rather a dream Peter has imagining what he believes happened based on the information told to him by Captain Stacy, which happens right around the same time the symbiote takes over Peter. This is also indicated in that script summary. They could also have a scene later on in the movie where Sandman tells what
really happened and we see the "dream" of Uncle Ben's murder from a different perspective.
Actually I made that argument above.
And I agree with it because legally Sandman could be guilty of Ben's murder because even if he wasn't the guy who pulled the trigger because he was an accomplice of the guy who actually did. However, if Sandman didn't pull the trigger, it makes him a victim of circumstance, which would set him on the path of becoming a full-fledged villian. His killing Uncle Ben would actually diminish whatever "understanding" we're supposed to have of him.
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.
Yes, but the only way Peter was able to truly appreciate that lesson was if Uncle Ben died and was killed by the one criminal that Peter let go. That's why it DOES matter that the thief was the one who killed Uncle Ben. Had it been some random criminal, yes Peter would've used those powers to apprehend or at least beat the guy within an inch of his life--which he did. But when he saw that it was the guy was the same criminal he himself let go, THAT was the moment his Uncle's words truly sunk in. It wasn't so much like Batman where Bruce saw his parents murdered before his eyes and decided right then and there to fight all crime; it was because of Peter's own inaction of letting a person escape that ended up costing his uncle's life. That means, in his eyes, he's just as responsible for his uncle being murdered as the guy who pulled the trigger. That's what makes his path to becoming a hero stand out and be more complex. You take away that, then Spidey just becomes another generic hero.
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.
No, I'm not saying that revenge is okay unless it's the wrong person. What I am saying is that, from a dramatic standpoint, Spidey seeking revenge against someone innocent--okay, technically not so innocent but maybe innocent of actually pulling the trigger--further illustrates that seeking revenge is wrong AND it also ties into the other two stories of Harry wrongly seeking revenge against Peter for something he didn't do, and Eddie seeking revenge against Peter for something he didn't do. The Ox-Bow Incident also tackled that same theme of how revenge is wrong AND how it can cloud a person (or in that case a mob) from the truth.
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.
And that underscores the idea that Sandman, even though he thinks he's doing what's right, is actually so single-minded in his goal that he refuses to see the destruction he is causing. From his rationle, he's a father protecting his child and he's not going to let so much as hell itself get in his way to save his daughter's life. And it parallels the idea that Peter believes he's doing the right thing by going after the Sandman for personal reasons and not realizing the harm he's causing. Both are blinded by what they percieve is doing the right thing, but are not actually doing the right thing.
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.
Yes, the story is about Peter but, like any good superhero story, the villains DO parallel or reflect the hero in some capacity in order to enhance the hero's journey. Yes, revenge is the theme and notice how in all of these stories, Peter, Harry, Eddie, and quite possibly Marko, as it seems to be the case, are motivated by revenge and, especially in Harry's case and most likely in Eddie's case, comes about through misunderstanding as to what really happened. The same thing is likely to happen with regards to Peter seeking revenge against Sandman because of a misunderstanding of what really happened, which in turn leads to the Sandman seeking revenge against Spider-Man because he doesn't understand why Spidey is taking their fight so personally. And it can still get across the idea that revenge is wrong and that one of the reasons it's wrong is because it blinds us from doing the right thing and from the truth.
t: Brillant post
.
.
.
