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

[bosef982]

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.



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.



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.

Wow, people have brains on SHH. Everyone once and a while you find one


But yes, this does seem to be the natural synthesis of the themes of this movie -- it also makes the climax of this film a bit more thematic then previous movies in that Peter must confront the offspring of his vengeance and must, fittingly, seek the help of Harry in order to win. The symmetry lines up quite well.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

the reason why revenge is wromg because it will control you, thats all you would think about, we can consider sandman a monster, but, notice how symbiote spidey tracks him down alot, sandman is more of bad guy/ crook that escaped from prison, he has a family, peters revenge grew even more when he got the symbiote costume.

 

[Dragon]

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.

Sandman being innocent doesn't make PETER'S story more powerful. Making him guilty makes Peter's story more powerful. All making Sandman innocent does is stress a point that doesn't really matter.

Making him guilty also makes Sandman a greater threat, making the film more exciting, as he's a more ruthless villain. You know he'll go to any length to achieve his goal.

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.

None of which is changed by Marko being guilty.

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.

That wasn't selfishness on Peter's part. He gained nothing from letting the robber go. He simply felt that just as the promoter robbed him, the promoter was getting his own poetic justice, which is why Peter threw the promoter's line back at him. Peter was just unaware of the higher lesson that was placed before him until Ben was killed.

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.

And still his having shot Ben doesn't change anything. In that scene he's causing massive damage. The realization that he's endangering his daughter could be a way to give him pause. Like I said, he could certainly feel remorse for Ben's death. But- his daughter there could also serve simply to let her see what her father (Whom she probably hero-worships) is really like.

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.

When he's smashing those cops, it has nothing to do with Spidey seeking revenge. Surely you can't think that because Spidey attacked him, he feels justified in attacking the cops. Sandman could escape the police without attacking them. Bullets don't hurt him. He could just dissolve into a manhole or something. That he's attacking the cops suggest he isn't just out for his daughter, and that yes, he might have killed Ben because he, like the cops was in Marko's way.

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.

But again- no evidence of that from the filming. We'd have seen takes with the different set-ups showing Marko's innocence.

His killing Uncle Ben would actually diminish whatever "understanding" we're supposed to have of him.

But- again- who says we're supposed to have an understanding with him? Did Raimi, THC or anyone else say this?

And actually, yes we could have an understanding with him. In Diehard, Officer Powell accidentally shot a kid. We still understood and sympathized with him. In Born on the 4th of July Cruise's character killed a fellow soldier. We understood and sympathized with him. Ock and the Goblin were killers, yet there was still some sympathy for them.

It’s simplistic black & white thinking to suggest that because someone does something wrong, there’s NEVER any redemption for them.

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.

Only in the comic book world. In the real world (where Raimi attempts to put Spider-Man) if anyone with a conscience knows they inadvertently caused someone's death when they could have prevented it, they feel guilt; Often life changing guilt.

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.

I disagree. The point of Spider-Man is that With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. Peter is supposed to use his powers for the greater good regardless. Otherwise he'd have quit after bringing Ben's killer to justice. If Ben hadn't died, it might have taken him longer to realize it, but he would have. Peter is that kind of person.

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.

Again I disagree. Spider-Man is the icon he is because of a number of reasons. His origin, his powers, his costume, the quality of story-telling that fueled his run. There's still no difference if he caught the wrong guy the first time. If you learn at age twenty that you're adopted you still love your parents. Peter, regardless of who shot Ben still learned the responsibility of his powers and still knows he has to use them. When in Spidey 2 he ran powerless (No powers means no responsibility, right?) into the burning building, he wasn't doing it for Ben. He did it because it was the right thing to do.

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

It's not necessary to state that point. It's like saying "You know stabbing someone is wrong. So, stabbing them in the heart is REALLY wrong". You can stop at stabbing someone is wrong. "I married you because I love you. I also married you because you have big boobs".

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.

But Peter has a higher purpose than Harry and Eddie. So for them to want revenge against an innocent man is okay. They’re villains, and thus inherently petty. Spider-Man has higher morals, so his lesson should also be higher. It's harder to forgive someone who's guilty. And exactly- Harry and Eddie are out for revenge against an innocent man. The point is driven home. There's no need to constantly repeat it.

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.

Revenge isn't wrong because it blinds you. If you're out for revenge, you're already "blinded".

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Sandman being innocent doesn't make PETER'S story more powerful. Making him guilty makes Peter's story more powerful. All making Sandman innocent does is stress a point that doesn't really matter.

Making him guilty also makes Sandman a greater threat, making the film more exciting, as he's a more ruthless villain. You know he'll go to any length to achieve his goal.



None of which is changed by Marko being guilty.



That wasn't selfishness on Peter's part. He gained nothing from letting the robber go. He simply felt that just as the promoter robbed him, the promoter was getting his own poetic justice, which is why Peter threw the promoter's line back at him. Peter was just unaware of the higher lesson that was placed before him until Ben was killed.



And still his having shot Ben doesn't change anything. In that scene he's causing massive damage. The realization that he's endangering his daughter could be a way to give him pause. Like I said, he could certainly feel remorse for Ben's death. But- his daughter there could also serve simply to let her see what her father (Whom she probably hero-worships) is really like.



When he's smashing those cops, it has nothing to do with Spidey seeking revenge. Surely you can't think that because Spidey attacked him, he feels justified in attacking the cops. Sandman could escape the police without attacking them. Bullets don't hurt him. He could just dissolve into a manhole or something. That he's attacking the cops suggest he isn't just out for his daughter, and that yes, he might have killed Ben because he, like the cops was in Marko's way.



But again- no evidence of that from the filming. We'd have seen takes with the different set-ups showing Marko's innocence.



But- again- who says we're supposed to have an understanding with him? Did Raimi, THC or anyone else say this?

And actually, yes we could have an understanding with him. In Diehard, Officer Powell accidentally shot a kid. We still understood and sympathized with him. In Born on the 4th of July Cruise's character killed a fellow soldier. We understood and sympathized with him. Ock and the Goblin were killers, yet there was still some sympathy for them.

It’s simplistic black & white thinking to suggest that because someone does something wrong, there’s NEVER any redemption for them.




Only in the comic book world. In the real world (where Raimi attempts to put Spider-Man) if anyone with a conscience knows they inadvertently caused someone's death when they could have prevented it, they feel guilt; Often life changing guilt.



I disagree. The point of Spider-Man is that With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. Peter is supposed to use his powers for the greater good regardless. Otherwise he'd have quit after bringing Ben's killer to justice. If Ben hadn't died, it might have taken him longer to realize it, but he would have. Peter is that kind of person.



Again I disagree. Spider-Man is the icon he is because of a number of reasons. His origin, his powers, his costume, the quality of story-telling that fueled his run. There's still no difference if he caught the wrong guy the first time. If you learn at age twenty that you're adopted you still love your parents. Peter, regardless of who shot Ben still learned the responsibility of his powers and still knows he has to use them. When in Spidey 2 he ran powerless (No powers means no responsibility, right?) into the burning building, he wasn't doing it for Ben. He did it because it was the right thing to do.



It's not necessary to state that point. It's like saying "You know stabbing someone is wrong. So, stabbing them in the heart is REALLY wrong". You can stop at stabbing someone is wrong. "I married you because I love you. I also married you because you have big boobs".



But Peter has a higher purpose than Harry and Eddie. So for them to want revenge against an innocent man is okay. They’re villains, and thus inherently petty. Spider-Man has higher morals, so his lesson should also be higher. It's harder to forgive someone who's guilty. And exactly- Harry and Eddie are out for revenge against an innocent man. The point is driven home. There's no need to constantly repeat it.



Revenge isn't wrong because it blinds you. If you're out for revenge, you're already "blinded".

revenge blinds you from everything else in the world, it makes you concentrate on one thing, and never let go of it until, say with peter kill the person who did it, peter was blinded by revenge and didnt stop until he killed sandman.

 

[Dragon]

revenge blinds you from everything else in the world, it makes you concentrate on one thing, and never let go of it until, say with peter kill the person who did it, peter was blinded by revenge and didnt stop until he killed sandman.

Actually, that's obsession. A person can become obsessed with anything: Revenge, money, love, whatever.

The problem isn't what revenge "makes you do". It's that you seek revenge at all, that's the problem.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Actually, that's obsession. A person can become obsessed with anything: Revenge, money, love, whatever.

The problem isn't what revenge "makes you do". It's that you seek revenge at all, that's the problem.

well siad dragon.

 

[The Kid]

See the conflict Robin faces in Batman Forever for a possible example of what Raimi's trying to do with Spider-man in Spider-man 3.

There are others too, but that one is the most similar I think in that Batman constantly tells Robin that revenge isn't the answer.

 

[Kanon]

Man, all this "Sandman is not really the murderer, is an allucination induced by the symbiote" is like "Psylocke implanting memories of Jean killing Scott" in the X3 forums all over again...

 

[Dragon]

I love how you fail to quote the part of the post where I explain just this
If we go out and take revenge it can cloud our judgement. The Justice Sytem is impartial. If Sandman is innocent then the courts could find him as such, a man out for revenge could not. Spider-Man killing an innocent man because he feels he needs revenge shows revenge is wrong. Why? because it clouds us from the truth, as it does with the other characters.

First of all, you're mistaking "revenge" for obsession. OBSESSION with revenge clouds our judgement. But as May says, REVENGE IS A POISON. It isn't walking the path that's wrong- but stepping onto the path at all.

Would a an ex-killer with Sand powers qualify as an immediate threat to you?

Not necessarily. Sandman's powers are not inherently lethal, unlike say, a gun.

Apparently you've never read a single comic in your short life, because unlike the movie. Spider-man hunts down Norman Osbourne and battles him. Norman accidentally kills himself (like the movie) and no lesson about revenge is learned.

"Good lord.. What in the name of heaven am I doing? In another moment I might have killed him! I would have become like Him! A- A murderer!"

Spider-Man- Amazing spider-Man vol. 1 #122

Get it?

A lesson he never would have learned had Ben never died because of his carelssness.

Of course he would have learned it. The reason Peter is Spider-Man is because the lesson was always inside of him. But to make the STORY MORE DRAMATIC- Stan Lee gave Peter a terrible means to learn that lesson.

Every what if, every elseworld that has ever had Uncle Ben not die all share a common theme. Spider-Man NEVER becomes a superhero.
House of M is the most recent, there have been many others. All show that without the guilt of Uncle Ben dying he became famous, rich and made a career as a wrestler. Any other assertion is just you trying to lie to us to justify your logic. Denied. By Stan Lee no less.

WRONG AGAIN. What If #7 showed 3 stories of Peter not becoming Spider-Man- with no death of Ben- all of which led to Peter becoming Spider-Man because it's what was meant to be.

What- If ( I think it's number 19? ) Has Peter remaining an entertainer- but in the end still becoming a hero.

And in House of M- HE IS A HERO- He's just also a wrestler and movie star.

Thing's brother died, and he became a monster thus prompting Reed to devout his services to helping Thing.

That's not the reason they became superheroes. They realized their powers could serve the common good.

Thor was summoned because of Loki.

Again, stop saying things you clearly don't know. Loki wasn't even in Thor's first appearance. He was imprisoned. Loki broke free because he learned of Thor's return. Thor returned because Odin believed he was needed (There was an Alein attack). It's more complicated, but I don't have the desire to explain it.

Iron Man's father died and his own lust for money brought him betrayal, the death of his savior Ho Yinsen. And a bum ticker. That is tragedy.

Again- not why he became Ironman, the superhero. He merely had to wear the chestplate to protect his heart. He didn't have to fight supervillains.

Captain America's family died in a car wreck leaving him as the sole survivor. His sidekick later died prompting his return in the 1960s.

Try researching this stuff first

So you're saying he became Captain America to what- prevent further car accidents? Having a tragedy in his past isn't why he became Captain America

It was because he was a frickin' patriot and entering the super soldier program was the only way he could serve, since he was to physically frail to be a solider.

But they'd also feel sympathy for Peter if he killed him.

And guess what- they're supposed to feel sympathy for Peter- He's the main character

So is Spider-Man right to make the judgement against Sandman?

NO.

Which is what I've been saying this whole time. His job is only to bring Sandman to the authorities, and they can punish him for his crimes.

But (and thanks for not quoting the explanation) your logic eats itself. Because in your case Parker's lust for revenge only brings him the truth, his Uncle's real killer.

No it doesn't.

Peter first LEARNS THE TRUTH- That Marko killed Ben. Then he DECIDES to enact revenge against Marko.

It's easy to say this, hard to show it. Movies show things. They aren't going to magically have Peter go, this revenge thing is wrong, sorry Sandman. He has to learn from a mistake, just as he learned "great power comes great responsibility" from a mistake. Morals are a process of trail and error.

Peter IS making a mistake. He's going out for REVENGE. He becomes obsessed with finding Marko, and begins to destroy the relationships around him. Then, due to the suit's influence, he becomes viscious, cruel and merciless. Even though Sandman is the one that's guilty, Peter makes everyone else suffer.

And by the way stiop patronizing people or I will report you to a Mod.

Report away. You've got lots to answer for since you started the fighting.

 

[Spiderine]

Ok Marko shoots Ben, the mugger looks at Flint and says ,"Man what the hell are you doing, You werent supposed to shoot him, Im not going to jail for murder im out." He proceeds to hop in the car leaving Marko.

 

[The Caped Knight]

I'm only going to point this once

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I'm only going to point this once

that is one wrd, "responsibility", thats where peter learned to do the rght thing, to never let that happen again, he lost someone he loved because he only wanted to care about himself, he learned from his mistakes, "with great power comes great responsibility".

 

[Weapon M]

your wrong wrong wrong!!! ALL of you are WRONG!!!!!

And I will illustrate point for point how wrong you all are once I sit down and read your posts!!

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

responsibilty is the key to doing the right thing, revenge blinds you from everything else, peter had revenge, peter has a responsibility of saving people and keeping the city safe, his revenge is because of ucle bens death, he could have stoped the guy when he had the chance but he never did, he didnt think of the possibilities of what could happen, he chise not to stop him, in the first movie he said, "i missed the part where thats my problem", he thought it wasnt his problem, but what he didnt know was for every action is a consequince.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

First of all, you're mistaking "revenge" for obsession. OBSESSION with revenge clouds our judgement. But as May says, REVENGE IS A POISON. It isn't walking the path that's wrong- but stepping onto the path at all.

Why is revenge wrong. You have yet to explain why revenge is wrong. Why...answer it. How would you show revenge is wrong.

Not necessarily. Sandman's powers are not inherently lethal, unlike say, a gun.

I don't have to shoot anyone with a gun...therefore a gun is not inherently lethal. Nor do I have to use it in a lethal manner. Shooting someone in the leg is not lethal.

"Good lord.. What in the name of heaven am I doing? In another moment I might have killed him! I would have become like Him! A- A murderer!"

Spider-Man- Amazing spider-Man vol. 1 #122

Get it?

Stop patronizing people. Of course I know Spider-Man stopped short of killing Osbourne, I have the freaking issue. original print. The point of that story was that Peter allowed for the death of Gwen Stacy by not protecting those around him, and by allowing Green Goblin to learn the truth. You need to show how Peter comes to this epiphany.

In those comics heroes were not aloud to kill because it was subject to a comic code. Therefore out of necessity Peter does not kill. However that story, like many before it, lacks explanation for why Peter comes to this conclusion. Something movies need to establish.

And by the way, if you hunt someone down and beat the crap out of them: that is revenge. Revenge does not equal killing. He beat up Green Goblin; therefore Peter enacted revenge on him. If he beats up, or even lays a hand on Sandman for killing his Uncle; that is revenge.

Of course he would have learned it. The reason Peter is Spider-Man is because the lesson was always inside of him. But to make the STORY MORE DRAMATIC- Stan Lee gave Peter a terrible means to learn that lesson.

Ummm no, just no.

For at last he grasped the basic truth, that would shape him all his life: with great power comes great responsibility.

Maybe you were raised in a family where all your morals are decided for you, but in the real world that does not happen.

WRONG AGAIN. What If #7 showed 3 stories of Peter not becoming Spider-Man- with no death of Ben- all of which led to Peter becoming Spider-Man because it's what was meant to be.

What- If ( I think it's number 19? ) Has Peter remaining an entertainer- but in the end still becoming a hero.

Ummmm....no. All those stories ended with yet another tragedy teaching him the error of his ways.

And in House of M- HE IS A HERO- He's just also a wrestler and movie star.

No he was just an entertainer. All his bouts of "heroics" were staged television appearances.

That's not the reason they became superheroes. They realized their powers could serve the common good.

Just out of thin air. People don't go "hey common good, of course!"

Again, stop saying things you clearly don't know. Loki wasn't even in Thor's first appearance. He was imprisoned. Loki broke free because he learned of Thor's return. Thor returned because Odin believed he was needed (There was an Alein attack). It's more complicated, but I don't have the desire to explain it.

Loki got out because he dropped a feather into the eye of a passerby.

It's since been retconned that Loki engineered Thor's return.

Again- not why he became Ironman, the superhero. He merely had to wear the chestplate to protect his heart. He didn't have to fight supervillains.

He fought back because when he cowered, the man who protected him, Ho Yinsen. Was shot to death. Out of remorse he decided to use the suit of armor he created to protect people like him and not hide anymore.

So you're saying he became Captain America to what- prevent further car accidents? Having a tragedy in his past isn't why he became Captain America

It was because he was a frickin' patriot and entering the super soldier program was the only way he could serve, since he was to physically frail to be a solider.

He enlisted in the army after his parents were killed. He did so because he felt the only way to ease the pain.

And guess what- they're supposed to feel sympathy for Peter- He's the main character

Okay, so if he kills him, and he's right...we feel sympathy. And thus upholding that in Peter's case revenge was justified.

NO.

Which is what I've been saying this whole time. His job is only to bring Sandman to the authorities, and they can punish him for his crimes.

No it's not. He is not a police officer. It is not his job. If he beats up Sandman and leaves him for the authorities, that is also revenge. Cops don't have personal stakes in crimes, and when they do they are no alloud on the case (typically).

No it doesn't.

Peter first LEARNS THE TRUTH- That Marko killed Ben. Then he DECIDES to enact revenge against Marko.

How does he know it's the truth. The only way to know is if Marko was convicted, which he has not been. He has not been brought to trail. Not been alloud to argue his innocence. In this system YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. So you're saying, in effect, because the cops say "this is who we believe killed your uncle" it's true. So if the cops say you run a string of prostitutes they should be able to throw you in jail...because that is true. The cop said it, it must be true.

Peter IS making a mistake. He's going out for REVENGE. He becomes obsessed with finding Marko, and begins to destroy the relationships around him. Then, due to the suit's influence, he becomes viscious, cruel and merciless. Even though Sandman is the one that's guilty, Peter makes everyone else suffer.

Is it the suit, or revenge. Because from where your standing it's the suit, not the revenge. If he is obsessed with revenge, and his life has become that then something has to shake him out of it. By you're logic the suit is evil, so if it makes him want to kill his Uncle's killer the only thing that could stop it is either accomplising that goal; or finding out he is in the wrong.

In order to find out your in the wrong, you have to make a mistake. Peter made a mistake by seeking fame, it bites him in the ass. I DON'T KNOW A FLAME IS HOT UNTIL I TOUCH IT.

If I am obsessed with revenge then only revenge with quench that thirst. Punisher doesn't stop, why? Because he always kills the right person. There is no need for him to stop, because that is how he feels.

Report away. You've got lots to answer for since you started the fighting.

I apologize for my drunken calling you a moron, but you started this no one else.

Everyone else here is wrong, only you are right. That's being a jerk. Leave this board and calm the f*** down. I am so glad where ever you live you are the center of the Universe. But starting off every post with "wrong" "rolleyes" and "I am so smart" only speaks to you as a person.

What the f*** do you know about the common good if you cannot even act like a decent human being.

 

[3x0dus]

Okay so it's established that Sandman is a robber and is carrying bags of money, right? Or at least that's what it seems.

Did we ever see Uncle Ben's killer with the money he stole after he escaped the building? If not, maybe between stealing the money and stealing the car, he ran into Sandman and had the money taken from him. Maybe police or otherwise saw this and misinterpreted what they saw and assumed some type of involvement between the two that they used to connect Sandman to the murder.

Just a thought.

 

[The Caped Knight]

Okay so it's established that Sandman is a robber and is carrying bags of money, right? Or at least that's what it seems.

Did we ever see Uncle Ben's killer with the money he stole after he escaped the building? If not, maybe between stealing the money and stealing the car, he ran into Sandman and had the money taken from him.

Just a thought.

He had the money when he entered the wearhouse as well as a gun in his hand .

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

sandman just shot uncle ben, he didn take the money or take the car, uncle bens killer did, sandman and uncle bens killer just hada plan, sandman must have waited around a corner, come out of the corner and shoot unle ben so that uncle bens killer could get away, uncle bens killer had the money, not sandman.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

And by the way (just to reintterate) Dragon revenge is not killing, revenge could be beating someone up and leaving them for the cops. If someone kills my Dad, and I go over to his house and beat him up, tie him up and leave him for police that qualifies as revenge.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

sandman just shot uncle ben, he didn take the money or take the car, uncle bens killer did, sandman and uncle bens killer just hada plan, sandman must have waited around a corner, come out of the corner and shoot unle ben so that uncle bens killer could get away, uncle bens killer had the money, not sandman.

We've seen the "screenshots" at this point of the "Ben mugging". In every scene Sandman is there at the same time as the mugger (the only one with the gun).

Although I am having a little trouble making sense of your post. Here is where I am coming from. Sandman goes to get the car. He takes Ben out (in the photos you see him pull Ben out by the collar). Seeing he is old, he tries to take the car "peacefully". The carjacker shoots Ben. Flint get's scared, and his accomplice leaves him behind.

 

[Spider Man]

First of all, you're mistaking "revenge" for obsession. OBSESSION with revenge clouds our judgement. But as May says, REVENGE IS A POISON. It isn't walking the path that's wrong- but stepping onto the path at all.

Is Peter not suddenly OBSESSING over Sandman have being told that he was his uncle's killer? You said it yourself that that is what Peter is doing. Here, I'll use your own logic to prove my point.

Obsession+revenge=Clouded judgement.
Peter's obsession+revenge for his uncle=Clouded judgement

Yes, we all know that for a superhero to enact revenge is wrong. That's practically a given. For him to exact revenge on a man that didn't commit the crime...Even MORE wrong. This is more than just about revenge being wrong. You have to illustrate why that is. In this case, Revenge is wrong not only because Peter has the job of upholding truth and justice, but ignoring justice and succumbing to revenge gets in the way of discovering the truth.

Of course he would have learned it. The reason Peter is Spider-Man is because the lesson was always inside of him. But to make the STORY MORE DRAMATIC- Stan Lee gave Peter a terrible means to learn that lesson.

Exactly. It's a means to make it more dramatic. With Sandman not the actual killer he creates a foil. The four male leads become foils of each other.

Harry wants revenge on Peter. Peter didn't kill his father. Revenge is clouding Harry's reasoning to discover the truth.

Brock wants revenge on Peter for moving in on his life (Stacy/Bugle?) Revenge clouds Brock's judgement to see the truth that Peter doesn't want Gwen

Peter wants revenge on Marko. Marko didn't kill his Uncle. Revenge is clouding Peter from discovering the truth.

Every plot needs something to change it up. If we see the trailer and it's revealed that Sandman is the killer is there anyone who actually thinks that Spider-Man WILL kill Sandman? No. That's a given. That's basic superhero code. So what makes this hunt for the killer more interesting? He's not the killer.

Peter suddenly realizes what revenge has lead him to. "I wanted to avenge my uncle's death so bad that I almost abused my power, almost went too far, almost unjustly punished someone." But Spidey isn't supposed to punish, right? That's not his job. But revenge and the symbiote almost make him lose sight of his role, until he's jolted by the revelation that Marko didn't do it.


You need a shift in the character. At what point does Peter realize he's almost gone over the edge? I'm not arguing that what you're saying is wrong, Dragon, but in terms of an engaging story, where's the shift? At what moment does it hit Spidey that revenge is wrong? At what point does he realize that the symbiote is effecting him?

Perhaps it's after realizing he almost crossed the line. The line between "Hero" and "Menace." He was almost turned into a menace by his revenge and obsession +the symbiote, and thusly the revelation that Sandman didn't kill his uncle serves as the shift. A moment when Peter snaps out of it and says, "What am I doing? This is wrong..." NOW he learns why revenge is wrong.

"Theme enclosed. Movie preserved."

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

We've seen the "screenshots" at this point of the "Ben mugging". In every scene Sandman is there at the same time as the mugger (the only one with the gun).

Although I am having a little trouble making sense of your post. Here is where I am coming from. Sandman goes to get the car. He takes Ben out (in the photos you see him pull Ben out by the collar). Seeing he is old, he tries to take the car "peacefully". The carjacker shoots Ben. Flint get's scared, and his accomplice leaves him behind.

yeah, sandman must have got scared, and the cops were pretty much around the corner, that means that sandman pulle ben out of tye ar by the collar shot him got scared bens killer decided he couldnt wait for sandman, bens killer drove away, and the cops must have thought uncle bens killer shot uncle ben, of course the cops would go after him, after that, sandman must have whent some where and hid god knows where though.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

yeah, sandman must have got scared, and the cops were pretty much around the corner, that means that sandman pulle ben out of tye ar by the collar shot him got scared bens killer decided he couldnt wait for sandman, bens killer drove away, and the cops must have thought uncle bens killer shot uncle ben, of course the cops would go after him, after that, sandman must have whent some where and hid god knows where though.

hmmm no. Carjacker shoots Ben (the assumption is that the gun belongs to Marko or someone sees Flint marko standing over Ben's dead body, something along those lines). Flint Marko, who did not want to murder anyone, flees after HIS FRIEND SHOOTS BEN. Hence why Marko doesn't have the money or car.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

hmmm no. Carjacker shoots Ben (the assumption is that the gun belongs to Marko or someone sees Flint marko standing over Ben's dead body, something along those lines). Flint Marko, who did not want to murder anyone, flees after HIS FRIEND SHOOTS BEN. Hence why Marko doesn't have the money or car.

i get it, after the carjacker shoots ben and flees without marko, marko is standing over bens body and he runs away making people think that he shot uncle ben, but what if marko really did shoot uncle ben.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

i get it, after the carjacker shoots ben and flees without marko, marko is standing over bens body and he runs away making people think that he shot uncle ben, but what if marko really did shoot uncle ben.

Well I have not read any legit information to suggest this...BUT...that is the point of this thread. Sure, Sandman could easily be the killer, I don't know what Raimi okayed. I watched a Phoenix Saga movie that had Cyclops die in the first five minutes (and he is the main character of the REAL Phoenix Saga).

So yeah, he could have, but I think as we've talked about...it seems to fit much better in the overarching theme of the movie to have the opposite be the case.