The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - User Review Thread! - SPOILERS! - Part 5

I find that kind of hair-splitting irritating.

Uncle Ben died because Peter wanted to get even with someone instead of doing the right thing.

Chocolate milk, 3 grand, a purse snatching, the lesson is always the same, so give me a break.
 
I find that kind of hair-splitting irritating.

Uncle Ben died because Peter wanted to get even with someone instead of doing the right thing.

Chocolate milk, 3 grand, a purse snatching, the lesson is always the same, so give me a break.

Usually it is because Peter has a legitimate gripe. It is more believable and understandable why Peter would choose to let the burglar go, even though it is always portrayed as being the wrong choice.

In TASM, the stakes are so low that Peter just comes off as a petty, selfish brat. It is not a choice that any reasonable person would ever contemplate.
 
Uh, he gets his powers, he becomes a brat. Isn't that the way it's always been? He finally doesn't need to be kicked around anymore, "Looking out for number 1!". Cashier kicks him around over two cents, so he thinks, "Well that'll fix this tool", as a robber picks the register.

Then after he finds out his Uncle Ben is murdered by the same person he didn't stop, he thinks, "Gee, maybe I've been a brat, maybe with these new powers, I have some responsibility!"

I mean, really, does the dollar amount Ben is killed over really overshadow the lesson that is unchanged?
 
Last edited:
Uh, he gets his powers, he becomes a brat. Isn't that the way it's always been? He finally doesn't need to be kicked around anymore, "Looking out for number 1!". Cashier kicks him around over two cents, so he thinks, "Well that'll fix this tool", as a robber picks the register.

Then after he finds out his Uncle Ben is murdered by the same person he didn't stop, he thinks, "Gee, maybe I've been a brat, maybe with these new powers, I have some responsibility!"

I mean, really, does the dollar amount Ben is killed over really overshadow the lesson that is unchanged?

I would say it does. In TASM, the argument is over basically nothing. If he was getting screwed out of hundreds or thousands of dollars, him being angry and wanting revenge is a lot more believable and understandable. Still the wrong choice, but we understand why he would make that choice.

By itself, that scene isn't that big of a deal, but it is a part of a very significant problem both TASM films have in that Peter is basically an unlikeable jerk.
 
Well, Peter is a jerk in most versions of him letting the robber go...

Yes, but it is rarely this bad. And in every other version of the character he learns 'with great power comes great responsibility' and becomes a better person because of it.

In the ASM series, he never does. He's the same selfish brat at the end of TASM2 that he is before Uncle Ben dies.
 
Letting the Robber go is morally wrong regardless of the price.

Relatively, the Dollar amount became significant to both Peter and the Cashier.

In that moment, the Cashier being nasty made peter be nasty back, and when he was being a brat, as you put it, he lets a robber go, who then goes on to Shoot uncle ben.

By the way, you can't blame Peter for killing Uncle Ben if you don't blame Peter for killing Gwen, just noticed that. Because Peter's not responsible for Ben's choices. Funny world...
 
Letting the Robber go is morally wrong regardless of the price.

Relatively, the Dollar amount became significant to both Peter and the Cashier.

In that moment, the Cashier being nasty made peter be nasty back, and when he was being a brat, as you put it, he lets a robber go, who then goes on to Shoot uncle ben.

By the way, you can't blame Peter for killing Uncle Ben if you don't blame Peter for killing Gwen, just noticed that. Because Peter's not responsible for Ben's choices. Funny world...

Bingo.

:applaud
 
Yes, but it is rarely this bad.

I love this attitude. A generic, unquantifiable statement. Why is it rarely this bad? What is so intrinsicly wrong with this version of it?

And in every other version of the character he learns 'with great power comes great responsibility' and becomes a better person because of it.

He learnt a subsidary of that phrase, and becoming a better person is generally subjective, but you can point to multiple instances of differentiation with his character pre and post Ben. Note the examples below, but also the moral weight he begins to accrue slowly over the two movies. At this start he essentially has no guilt and by the end of both films he's been guilty about 3 deaths, and is literally the cities beacon of hope. That's the weight he has to carry, and it has to trancend his own suffering. Poignant portrayal of the message, if you ask me.

In the ASM series, he never does. He's the same selfish brat at the end of TASM2 that he is before Uncle Ben dies.

In TASM, Peter is hunting down people to avenge his uncle, he's letting Petty theives rob stores. He's putting the smackdown on flash, basically a bully.

In TASM2, Peter is saving New York, he's stopping people robbing medicine stores and saving a kid from school bullies.

Growth? Looks like it to me.

Peter's an odd fellow though, "Those are the best kind" is possibly the most un hero-like line in any CBM, ever. But I'm hoping he meant it as an "I love you" thing.
 
The clerk was being a jerk to Peter and Peter was in a really mood after having a rough day so if his day was great without getting untroubled at school and uncle ben arguing with him and instead was asked to pick up some milk and the clerk was being somewhat of a dick this role of the event would've been reversed. I mean if my day was extremely bad and some guy or women was being a pain in the ass to me I'd be angry enough to let their stuff to get stolen.
 
I'm pretty sure that Peter is gonna learn that "With great power comes great responsibility" line in the future. I don't know how ... It's just a feeling.

Anyway, as BRAB said, Peter has already understand 90% of what Ben tried to tell him by becoming Spider-Man. But George Stacy played a major role in his understanding.
 
I think we didn't get to see Gwen's death weighing down on his conscience as much in TASM2, especially with the way it ended and the fast forwarding of time.

However, I believe as Marc Webb has said himself, that will be explored more.

I believe we'll continue to see his character progress the same way we have from TASM1 to TASM2, this time much more heavily in terms of responsibility.
 
That's right and there is talks of KRAVEN being the main villain after the sinister six so I wonder how that will play out
 
BRAB said:
I love this attitude. A generic, unquantifiable statement. Why is it rarely this bad? What is so intrinsicly wrong with this version of it?

Vengeance is always morally wrong, but what the act which the character is seeking revenge for plays a big role in how sympathetic that character ends up being.

For example, The Punisher is not a moral character. But what makes a better and more believable story? Frank Castle becomes a vigilante that strikes against the criminal underworld because gangsters murdered his family or Frank Castle becomes a vigilante that strikes against the criminal underworld because gangsters killed his petunias?

In TASM, the reason Peter doesn't stop the burglar is so pathetic and lame, it hurts Peter's character and the story.

As for his growth as a character and learning about responsibility, the denouement of TASM2 involves him pitying himself for months and leaving the city to its fate. What a brilliant showcase of responsibility that was.
 
Vengeance is always morally wrong, but what the act which the character is seeking revenge for plays a big role in how sympathetic that character ends up being.

Money? Ticks for both films adaptations. Also, you're still not directly answering my question. Why is the vengence worse? You're being generic.

For example, The Punisher is not a moral character. But what makes a better and more believable story? Frank Castle becomes a vigilante that strikes against the criminal underworld because gangsters murdered his family or Frank Castle becomes a vigilante that strikes against the criminal underworld because gangsters killed his petunias?

Irrelevant to my question. Don't know why this is relevant to Spider-Man's supposed poor motivations? Or is coming up with an overexagerated example easier to make your point? I'm confused as to why you chose to jump to punisher, instead of addressing the more reasonable differences between TASM's adaptation of the Ben arc compared to other mediums. Jumping to punisher and hyperbole suggests that it is easier to justify your opinion with hyerbole than analysis of the subject matter.

In TASM, the reason Peter doesn't stop the burglar is so pathetic and lame, it hurts Peter's character and the story.

How so? Justify your claim.

As for his growth as a character and learning about responsibility, the denouement of TASM2 involves him pitying himself for months and leaving the city to its fate. What a brilliant showcase of responsibility that was.

Irrelevant to justifying your original statement. However, I recall the ending being Peter realising his responsibility as a beacon of hope to NYC and coming back to be that. He chooses to trancend anything he suffers personally to be something for the city he chose to protect. The fact that he mourned didn't change that, and may I add that we've already seen a "Spider man no more" arc. That was in one of the best CBMS ever, and didn't undermine the role of responsibility. Seems like your nitpicking the end of the film instead of actually addressing what I stated.

Funny that.

So, I'll ask again, why is TASM's version of events "this bad".
 
Money? Ticks for both films adaptations. Also, you're still not directly answering my question. Why is the vengence worse? You're being generic.

Saying money is vague like saying murder for Kaharan's murder analogy between family and petunias. It's two different standards of murder and money. Peter was cheated out of several grand he earned in one film adaptation, and was denied like what a dollar's worth of chocolate milk because he didn't have enough to pay for it in the other lol.

One was letting a guy get robbed because he was just robbed by him of several grand he earned. The other is letting a guy get robbed over some chocolate milk he didn't have enough for. That is why TASM's is very bad I think. Peter looks so childish and petty. It's like the saying crying over spilt milk, only here it was over chocolate milk the mean storekeeper would let him have lol.

Vengeance is morally wrong because revenge is never right, even if you have a good reason to want it.
 
The reason Peter wouldn't help stop the robbery in ASM was because the clerk was being a f**king a**hole.

Even an aspie could understand that.
 
Money? Ticks for both films adaptations. Also, you're still not directly answering my question. Why is the vengence worse? You're being generic.



Irrelevant to my question. Don't know why this is relevant to Spider-Man's supposed poor motivations? Or is coming up with an overexagerated example easier to make your point? I'm confused as to why you chose to jump to punisher, instead of addressing the more reasonable differences between TASM's adaptation of the Ben arc compared to other mediums. Jumping to punisher and hyperbole suggests that it is easier to justify your opinion with hyerbole than analysis of the subject matter.



How so? Justify your claim.



Irrelevant to justifying your original statement. However, I recall the ending being Peter realising his responsibility as a beacon of hope to NYC and coming back to be that. He chooses to trancend anything he suffers personally to be something for the city he chose to protect. The fact that he mourned didn't change that, and may I add that we've already seen a "Spider man no more" arc. That was in one of the best CBMS ever, and didn't undermine the role of responsibility. Seems like your nitpicking the end of the film instead of actually addressing what I stated.

Funny that.

So, I'll ask again, why is TASM's version of events "this bad".



I did justify my claims. You just either don't understand it or are choosing to ignore it. I've explained multiple times now what the difference is. All you are doing is simply saying I'm wrong.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
 
Saying money is vague like saying murder for Kaharan's murder analogy between family and petunias. It's two different standards of murder and money. Peter was cheated out of several grand he earned in one film adaptation, and was denied like what a dollar's worth of chocolate milk because he didn't have enough to pay for it in the other lol.

One was letting a guy get robbed because he was just robbed by him of several grand he earned. The other is letting a guy get robbed over some chocolate milk he didn't have enough for. That is why TASM's is very bad I think. Peter looks so childish and petty. It's like the saying crying over spilt milk, only here it was over chocolate milk the mean storekeeper would let him have lol.

Vengeance is morally wrong because revenge is never right, even if you have a good reason to want it.

Exactly. :up:
 
Actually Spider-Man's whole motivation behind his heroism is his guilt and his guilt somewhat develops his character even he goes to far as to pummel his foes into submission at times and has some kinds of emotions like he really wants to kill his dies but tries to hard not to. His life is somewhat messed up even he is confused by the whole thing so I applauded Marc Webb for going further into his spiderman life.
 
I did justify my claims. You just either don't understand it or are choosing to ignore it. I've explained multiple times now what the difference is. All you are doing is simply saying I'm wrong.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

:huh:

No, mate, you really haven't, and it is growing tiring.

You're becoming impossible to deal with, I know fully well what you're trying to do.I'm asking you to explain why something is worse, and you're bringing up PUNISHER. How does that explain a something?

You're not justifying your initial thesis that this adaptation is bad. You're bringing up

A.) Plants and death in punisher. (Inconsistent analogy)

B.) Nothing else.

That's it.

Basically, you're just making statements. It is incredibly frustrating that you can post what you post and then claim you've backed it up.

Its actually rather frustrating because you're turning this back on me, I fully understand your posts, and they're logically insufficient to back up your initial claim. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong and actually show me where you've justified your posts, maybe I'm reading something different.

If you can't do that its actually really a case of MORE generic statements without justification to swing the arguement in your favour. Again, I feel that's very disingenuous of you.

Saying money is vague like saying murder for Kaharan's murder analogy between family and petunias. It's two different standards of murder and money. Peter was cheated out of several grand he earned in one film adaptation, and was denied like what a dollar's worth of chocolate milk because he didn't have enough to pay for it in the other lol.

One was letting a guy get robbed because he was just robbed by him of several grand he earned. The other is letting a guy get robbed over some chocolate milk he didn't have enough for. That is why TASM's is very bad I think. Peter looks so childish and petty. It's like the saying crying over spilt milk, only here it was over chocolate milk the mean storekeeper would let him have lol.

Vengeance is morally wrong because revenge is never right, even if you have a good reason to want it.

Just going to use your words here;

You are not Ocstat (Kahran Ramsus) so you don't have to reply to this discussion at all. In fact neither does he if he does not want to. So stop stirring.

Crossed out names to make the implications of that post in this context more clear. I thought you didn't like it when other people jumped into discussions they weren't a part of? Have your changed your mind?

Anyway, to your actual post;

No, the murder analogy is incorrect as it is quantifying two different acts. A better analogy would be murdering one person or 40 people. The act is still instrinsically immoral. That's why its hyperbole, its a logical fallacy to counter a point with an analogy that is inherently misleading, or not quantifiable to the situation. Plant squashing does not equal murder. The withholding of money, whether that is 2c or $2, is still intrinsically the same act.

Fact of the matter is, at that time, its not the dollar amount that matters but the attitude of the person and the intrinsic value of the item in quesiton in that situation. There's a do/don't between the two characters, and the material object is a manifestation of the disagreement between the two characters. Letting the robbers go was simply Peter's way at getting back at the person for disagreeing with him, its irrelevant to the magnitude of the money as long as its over money. This is because the magnitude is situational to the context of the situation. Some may even claim that the clerk was nastier than the wrestling guy, hence, a larger disargeement, and in the context of the interaction, higher stakes. This would theoretically balance out the two acts, but its irrelevant in the end.

Never argued that vengence wasn't morally wrong, it kinda proves my point that any act of vengence that would kill Ben is thematically sufficient enough to fit the origin story.
 
Just going to use your words here.

Crossed out names to make the implications of that post in this context more clear. I thought you didn't like it when other people jumped into discussions they weren't a part of? Have your changed your mind?

I said that when you interjected saying my opinions were bad and you felt sorry for Ocstat having to deal with them.

I never said I had any problem with you or other people joining in discussions. You won't find any post of mine that says I did.

Anyway, to your actual post;

No, the murder analogy is incorrect as it is quantifying two different acts. A better analogy would be murdering one person or 40 people. The act is still instrinsically immoral. That's why its hyperbole, its a logical fallacy to counter a point with an analogy that is inherently misleading, or not quantifiable to the situation. Plant squashing does not equal murder. The withholding of money, whether that is 2c or $2, is still intrinsically the same act.

Fact of the matter is, at that time, its not the dollar amount that matters but the attitude of the person and the intrinsic value of the item in quesiton in that situation. There's a do/don't between the two characters, and the material object is a manifestation of the disagreement between the two characters. Letting the robbers go was simply Peter's way at getting back at the person for disagreeing with him, its irrelevant to the magnitude of the money as long as its over money. This is because the magnitude is situational to the context of the situation. Some may even claim that the clerk was nastier than the wrestling guy, hence, a larger disargeement, and in the context of the interaction, higher stakes. This would theoretically balance out the two acts, but its irrelevant in the end.

Never argued that vengence wasn't morally wrong, it kinda proves my point that any act of vengence that would kill Ben is thematically sufficient enough to fit the origin story.

The murder analogy is correct because murder is murder, there is just varying degrees of severity.

It is the dollar amount that matters because it is the basis of the reason for why someone could get so upset that they would turn a blind eye to a robbery. If someone was cheated out of several grand, that is a lot of money, and would make anyone very angry to be robbed of that by some dishonest person who wouldn't pay you for what you rightfully earned.

But not being allowed get some chocolate milk is the stupidest of reasons to allow a store to be robbed even if the guy had acted like a jerk. It's still childish and petty.

But it is not any act of vengeance that would suffice because even though it's wrong no matter what, it is why Peter wants it the helps paint the picture of the character and why they are doing it. Peter's irresponsibility looks more justified when he's been robbed himself of an awful lot of money. You can see why he would let the cheating manager get robbed himself, even though it's wrong. Letting a store be robbed because of chocolate milk is something a spoiled brat child would do.
 
Actually combined with peter's bad day followed by a bad mood it's reasonable for him to do that since that clerk didn't help up his day. Seriously this chocolate milk gag us getting real old
 
I said that when you interjected saying my opinions were bad and you felt sorry for Ocstat having to deal with them.

I never said I had any problem with you or other people joining in discussions. You won't find any post of mine that says I did.



The murder analogy is correct because murder is murder, there is just varying degrees of severity.

It is the dollar amount that matters because it is the basis of the reason for why someone could get so upset that they would turn a blind eye to a robbery. If someone was cheated out of several grand, that is a lot of money, and would make anyone very angry to be robbed of that by some dishonest person who wouldn't pay you for what you rightfully earned.

But not being allowed get some chocolate milk is the stupidest of reasons to allow a store to be robbed even if the guy had acted like a jerk. It's still childish and petty.

But it is not any act of vengeance that would suffice because even though it's wrong no matter what, it is why Peter wants it the helps paint the picture of the character and why they are doing it. Peter's irresponsibility looks more justified when he's been robbed himself of an awful lot of money. You can see why he would let the cheating manager get robbed himself, even though it's wrong. Letting a store be robbed because of chocolate milk is something a spoiled brat child would do.

Hold on isn't murder killing people not plants? Haha
 
By the way, you can't blame Peter for killing Uncle Ben if you don't blame Peter for killing Gwen, just noticed that. Because Peter's not responsible for Ben's choices. Funny world...

Exactly. In this series, Peter Parker is a flawless human being.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"