The Amazing Spider-Man Uncle Ben's Killer

[Picard Sisko]

Chapter 7 .

Thanks, I'll look out for it.

 

[chaseter]

I've often wondered why Spidey never just stopped the burgalar, took his cut or what he was owed from the wrestling match and then gave the rest back to the promoter.

This is one reason I liked they way Bens killing went down in ASM. Made more sense.

Or why Spidey never stopped the burglar, took his chocolate milk that he couldn't afford, and then gave the clerk two cents.

So you think Spider-Man should have stolen money, giving the promoter minus $3k what was stolen is stealing. Riiiiiiiight. Peter let a burglar steal beer and money because of two cents in ASM. In SM1 he was out thousands of dollars. Both got Ben killed. Which burglar would you be more inclined to let go? The one that just stole from the guy that denied you two cents or the one that just denied you $2900?

 

[Picard Sisko]

Or why Spidey never stopped the burglar, took his chocolate milk that he couldn't afford, and then gave the clerk two cents.

So you think Spider-Man should have stolen money, giving the promoter minus $3k what was stolen is stealing. Riiiiiiiight. Peter let a burglar steal beer and money because of two cents in ASM. In SM1 he was out thousands of dollars. Both got Ben killed. Which burglar would you be more inclined to let go? The one that just stole from the guy that denied you two cents or the one that just denied you $2900?

Peter wasn't a hero, or even a vigilante yet at the time. For what reason would he have stopped the burglar in TASM? That clerk was a real ***, and sadly many of these lousy cashiers DO exist. I once couldn't buy an ice cream cone because I was missing 25 cents (after the clerk had already scooped all the ice cream). He'd rather throw it in the trash than let me buy it with what money I did have.

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

Peter Parker has a brillaint mind. It just never made sense to me that he would let the robber go with all that cash from the wrestling promoter. If he stopped the robbery he could've gotten the money HE WAS OWEDand gave the promoter back the rest. The promoter would have most of his money instead of none, Peter would have the cash he was promised instead of none, and the robber would have no money, no need to steal a car, and likely no reason to kill Uncle Ben. Ben Parker may still be alive if it went down like this.

That's why I like they way they handled it in TASM. The logic holds up better. I prefer almost everything about this interpretation of Bens death. Only thing I missed was watching Spidey beat up Crusher Hogan or Bonesaw. I understand why they left it out thoughand it worked out much better for it imo.

 

[SpiderMan'sBoot]

Peter Parker has a brillaint mind. It just never made sense to me that he would let the robber go with all that cash from the wrestling promoter. If he stopped the robbery he could've gotten the money HE WAS OWEDand gave the promoter back the rest. The promoter would have most of his money instead of none, Peter would have the cash he was promised instead of none, and the robber would have no money, no need to steal a car, and likely no reason to kill Uncle Ben. Ben Parker may still be alive if it went down like this.

That's why I like they way they handled it in TASM. The logic holds up better. I prefer almost everything about this interpretation of Bens death. Only thing I missed was watching Spidey beat up Crusher Hogan or Bonesaw. I understand why they left it out thoughand it worked out much better for it imo.

I always thought that! If he'd stopped him he probably would have been rewarded. Frustrates me watching it again.

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

]Peter wasn't a hero, or even a vigilante yet at the time. For what reason would he have stopped the burglar in TASM? [/B]That clerk was a real ***, and sadly many of these lousy cashiers DO exist. I once couldn't buy an ice cream cone because I was missing 25 cents (after the clerk had already scooped all the ice cream). He'd rather throw it in the trash than let me buy it with what money I did have.

Another good point.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I doubt Peter would have been rewarded if he stopped the robber in SM1. The guy who ripped him off said "Now he got away with MY money."

 

[Spiderdevil]

Peter Parker has a brillaint mind. It just never made sense to me that he would let the robber go with all that cash from the wrestling promoter. If he stopped the robbery he could've gotten the money HE WAS OWEDand gave the promoter back the rest. The promoter would have most of his money instead of none, Peter would have the cash he was promised instead of none, and the robber would have no money, no need to steal a car, and likely no reason to kill Uncle Ben. Ben Parker may still be alive if it went down like this.

That's why I like they way they handled it in TASM. The logic holds up better. I prefer almost everything about this interpretation of Bens death. Only thing I missed was watching Spidey beat up Crusher Hogan or Bonesaw. I understand why they left it out thoughand it worked out much better for it imo.

You are making no sense at all,It was handled way better in SM1,Peter was denied his 3000 freakin bucks because he kicked Bone Saw's butt in 2 minutes instead of 3,the promoter was acting like a real *****e.
Most people would let the robber get away,even I would,I would rather let the robber have the money than the *****e

It wasnt handled so well in TASM,a convenience store robbery was more realistic but not the way it was handled,its was Peter who was acting like a *****e there,if he didnt have the money he could have gotten something cheaper or a smaller bottle of milk plus the fat guy was just an employ,he didnt make the rules the owner did

And there is a huge difference between a well earned 3000 bucks being denied and 2 cents being denied which arent even yours to start with

 

[Picard Sisko]

You are making no sense at all,It was handled way better in SM1,Peter was denied his 3000 freakin bucks because he kicked Bone Saw's butt in 2 minutes instead of 3,the promoter was acting like a real *****e.
Most people would let the robber get away,even I would,I would rather let the robber have the money than the *****e

It wasnt handled so well in TASM,a convenience store robbery was more realistic but not the way it was handled,its was Peter who was acting like a *****e there,if he didnt have the money he could have gotten something cheaper or a smaller bottle of milk plus the fat guy was just an employ,he didnt make the rules the owner did

And there is a huge difference between a well earned 3000 bucks being denied and 2 cents being denied which arent even yours to start with

I think you're missing the point. He chose not to use his powers responsibly in either case, thus letting the criminal go, ultimately leading to the death of Uncle Ben.

So why wasn't it handled well in TASM? Because Peter was a *****e? I see it that he was a jerk in both versions of the story anyway.

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

You are making no sense at all,It was handled way better in SM1,Peter was denied his 3000 freakin bucks because he kicked Bone Saw's butt in 2 minutes instead of 3,the promoter was acting like a real *****e.
Most people would let the robber get away,even I would,I would rather let the robber have the money than the *****e

It wasnt handled so well in TASM,a convenience store robbery was more realistic but not the way it was handled,its was Peter who was acting like a *****e there,if he didnt have the money he could have gotten something cheaper or a smaller bottle of milk plus the fat guy was just an employ,he didnt make the rules the owner did

And there is a huge difference between a well earned 3000 bucks being denied and 2 cents being denied which arent even yours to start with

It makes perfect sense actually. I understand $3000 is more than two cents, but that isnt the point. The point is if you are a logical person in Peters shoes during SM1, letting the robber escape instead of stopping him and taking your $3000 is not logical. You would probably argue that it would be wrong for Pete to take his cut and give the rest back to the promoter right? Well even if its not the right thing to do, its smarter than letting the robber go with all that stolen cash leaving both Pete and the promoter broke, which as it turns out was also not the right thing to do since hes letting a criminal escape when he couldve easily stopped him.

Peter is of above average intelligence, so smart thing to do is stop the robber, stop the crime, take the money you earned, give the rest back to its owner. Or...let the robber go and everyone is broke and you dont stop the crime. If both options are wrong, at least one wrong option leaves you $3000 richer and you stopped a crime from being commited. And...Ben Parker stays alive. Which option ismore befitting a genius scientific prodigy like Petey? Thats why i prefer TASMs take on this subject. Just my opinion.

Your whole argument centers around $3000 being more than 2 cents. No one is arguing that. But maybe film makers decided in the end to make it 2 cents as opposed to thousands of dollars like in SM1 for a reason? Maybe because the amount of money Petey loses out on isnt the point. The point is he let someone being a *****e stop him from using his powers to help said person when a crime was commited against them. If the whole 3k thing was that important to the origin, they would've kept it for the reboot. The most important part has always and will always be with great power comes great responsibility.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I actually like the fact that they used only "2 cents" instead of $3,000 adds more meaning to the whole thing IMO. Even the smallest things like Chocolate milk can have a bigger cost in the end, in this case the life of Uncle Ben.

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

I actually like the fact that they used only "2 cents" instead of $3,000. Adds more meaning to the whole thing IMO. Even the smallest things like Chocolate milk can have a bigger cost in the end, in this case the life of Uncle Ben.

Exactly. And i speculate that the film makers chose 2 cents for those exact reasons. When making a new origin film for any beloved charecter you have to change certain things in order to differentiate the two films. Obviously they could have changed Bens murder and still included the $3000 aspect of it. I thinkthey chose not to and chose to make it literally 2 cents instead to make the points PicardSisko made above. It seems especially poignant now adays considering the times.

Some of Americas youth, and all across the world for that matter, are poor like Petey and probably never even seen $1000 with their own eyes before. But being told to scram from the store when youre just trying to get groceries to eat; and for what? 2 cents? I can relate and chances are, so can other teens in this day and age. Kudos to the film makers for giving me something i can relate to.

 

[Picard Sisko]

If they used the wrestling scene again, I guarantee even more people would be complaining how its the "same movie."

And clerks like that do exist, where even if you owe 2 cents, they won't let you purchase something. I've experienced that myself.

 

[Spiderdevil]

I think you're missing the point. He chose not to use his powers responsibly in either case, thus letting the criminal go, ultimately leading to the death of Uncle Ben.

So why wasn't it handled well in TASM? Because Peter was a *****e? I see it that he was a jerk in both versions of the story anyway.

Except that his jerkiness was justified in SM1 because he was robbed 3000 dollars he earned,it wasnt justified in TASM because the 2 cents wasnt his to start with

Plus the guy in SM1 was a criminal to boot to not give Peter his money making a lame excuse,while the store guy wasnt because he wasnt the one making the rules,the owner did

Another point is that Uncle Ben died in SM1 because he was unfortunately at the wrong place at the wrong time and paid for no mistake of his,while Uncle Ben in TASM tried to play hero and risk his life for a few hundred dollars which is never recommended,especially when you are an old man

 

[Picard Sisko]

Once again, Peter wasn't a vigilante or a hero when the store was being robbed. Why should he have to get involved in a store robbery and stop it? Especially when the jerk cashier wouldn't let him buy something because of a lousy 2 cents?

 

[Spiderdevil]

It makes perfect sense actually. I understand $3000 is more than two cents, but that isnt the point. The point is if you are a logical person in Peters shoes during SM1, letting the robber escape instead of stopping him and taking your $3000 is not logical. You would probably argue that it would be wrong for Pete to take his cut and give the rest back to the promoter right? Well even if its not the right thing to do, its smarter than letting the robber go with all that stolen cash leaving both Pete and the promoter broke, which as it turns out was also not the right thing to do since hes letting a criminal escape when he couldve easily stopped him.

Any normal person with emotions would have done the same,I would rather have the robber have my money than the *****e

As for Peter letting a criminal escape,thats the whole point of the exercise,he didnt give two hoots about criminal at that time and only learned his lesson after his Uncle died

Peter is of above average intelligence, so smart thing to do is stop the robber, stop the crime, take the money you earned, give the rest back to its owner. Or...let the robber go and everyone is broke and you dont stop the crime. If both options are wrong, at least one wrong option leaves you $3000 richer and you stopped a crime from being commited. And...Ben Parker stays alive. Which option ismore befitting a genius scientific prodigy like Petey? Thats why i prefer TASMs take on this subject. Just my opinion.

And you are simply assuming that had Peter stopped the robber,the promoter had given him the money,I am sure that wouldnt have been the case
He clearly says 'He got away with my money'

Your whole argument centers around $3000 being more than 2 cents. No one is arguing that. But maybe film makers decided in the end to make it 2 cents as opposed to thousands of dollars like in SM1 for a reason? Maybe because the amount of money Petey loses out on isnt the point. The point is he let someone being a *****e stop him from using his powers to help said person when a crime was commited against them. If the whole 3k thing was that important to the origin, they would've kept it for the reboot. The most important part has always and will always be with great power comes great responsibility.

Obviously everybody gets the point of the two scenes,we are debating about who did it in a better way
In my opinion,it should be done in such a way that

1.When Peter lets the criminal go,it feels justified from his POV at that point of time

2.Uncle Ben gets killed for no mistake of him and not because he trying to act hero

3.The swindler was actually being a *****e and not a simple employ following orders

 

[Spiderdevil]

Once again, Peter wasn't a vigilante or a hero when the store was being robbed. Why should he have to get involved in a store robbery and stop it? Especially when the jerk cashier wouldn't let him buy something because of a lousy 2 cents?

When did I say he should have gotten involved?

Instead not getting involved is always the right thing to do in such situations.Which is what actually makes it ironic

The Great power.. message needs to come because Peter makes a mistake(like he did in SM1 by letting the criminal go),in TASM imo he didnt make a mistake and did the ideal thing

If I dont stop a criminal in a store and he ends up killing a guy later on because that guy was trying to be a hero,I wont blame myself

 

[Picard Sisko]

When did I say he should have gotten involved?

Instead not getting involved is always the right thing to do in such situations.Which is what actually makes it ironic

The Great power.. message needs to come because Peter makes a mistake(like he did in SM1 by letting the criminal go),in TASM imo he didnt make a mistake and did the ideal thing

If I dont stop a criminal in a store and he ends up killing a guy later on because that guy was trying to be a hero,I wont blame myself

Why should he have gotten involved in either situations then? Why do you think Peter did the right thing in TASM and not in SM1? He had the power to stop him in both scenarios, and chose not to. That choice is what resulted in his Uncle's death, and Peter learning what it truly means to be responsible.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

You are making no sense at all,It was handled way better in SM1,Peter was denied his 3000 freakin bucks because he kicked Bone Saw's butt in 2 minutes instead of 3,the promoter was acting like a real *****e.

Rules are rules. If you don't meet your end of an agreement or contract the other side can pull out or decide not to meet their end. The promoter was being '*****ey' but he was also acting according to the wording in the agreement of the fight. I personally don't agree with the promoter's actions but Peter had no right to the money because he failed to meet the criteria.

It wasnt handled so well in TASM,a convenience store robbery was more realistic but not the way it was handled,its was Peter who was acting like a *****e there,if he didnt have the money he could have gotten something cheaper or a smaller bottle of milk

Peter was acting like a '*****e' to a degree but that's also part of the guilt that he bears. He looks back on the situation and realizes he was being an irresponsible jerk and because he failed to act appropriately, his Uncle ends up dying.

plus the fat guy was just an employ,he didnt make the rules the owner did

How do you know the 'fat guy' is not the owner? And even if he's not, according to you it's ok for him to break the rules set by the owner because "he's just an employee?" That's terrible logic and I will never hire you to work for me.

And there is a huge difference between a well earned 3000 bucks being denied and 2 cents being denied which arent even yours to start with

Again, Peter didn't technically earn the $3K, you just 'feel' he should be paid that amount because he beat Bonesaw in less time. There's nothing in the wording of the agreement that states that. That's your assumption and you're wrong.

The overall point is that Peter has a choice to stop a robbery. It doesn't matter the quantity the robber is taking, the point is, he's stealing. Peter fails to act and due to his irresponsibility, things go sour.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Rules are rules. If you don't meet your end of an agreement or contract the other side can pull out or decide not to meet their end. The promoter was being '*****ey' but he was also acting according to the wording in the agreement of the fight. I personally don't agree with the promoter's actions but Peter had no right to the money because he failed to meet the criteria.




Peter was acting like a '*****e' to a degree but that's also part of the guilt that he bears. He looks back on the situation and realizes he was being an irresponsible jerk and because he failed to act appropriately, his Uncle ends up dying.




How do you know the 'fat guy' is not the owner? And even if he's not, according to you it's ok for him to break the rules set by the owner because "he's just an employee?" That's terrible logic and I will never hire you to work for me.




Again, Peter didn't technically earn the $3K, you just 'feel' he should be paid that amount because he beat Bonesaw in less time. There's nothing in the wording of the agreement that states that. That's your assumption and you're wrong.

The overall point is that Peter has a choice to stop a robbery. It doesn't matter the quantity the robber is taking, the point is, he's stealing. Peter fails to act and due to his irresponsibility, things go sour.

This. All of this.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I agree with TDK elbowstrike for all of this. And Picard Sisko is right when he says using "2 cents" instead of $3,000 adds more meaning to the whole thing. It shows that it has nothing to do with the amount of money but the principal. I for one, would be more pissed if the shopkeeper did that to me, than if, after not doing his job properly during the wrestling match, he doesnt get paid the full amount.

On top of that, the original burglar had $3000+, Peter would have remedied the entire situation by stopping him, taking all the money and deciding what to do from there. He would have got his expensive car, with which to impress MJ with and lived happily ever after.

On the other hand, the new burglar gave him his milk and stole money that had nothing to do with Peter, so Pete had very little incentive to stop him.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Or why Spidey never stopped the burglar, took his chocolate milk that he couldn't afford, and then gave the clerk two cents.

So you think Spider-Man should have stolen money, giving the promoter minus $3k what was stolen is stealing. Riiiiiiiight. Peter let a burglar steal beer and money because of two cents in ASM. In SM1 he was out thousands of dollars. Both got Ben killed. Which burglar would you be more inclined to let go? The one that just stole from the guy that denied you two cents or the one that just denied you $2900?

For someone who defended some kid from Flash, Peter quickly lost his heroism during that scene. And over a chocolate milk, too.

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

Isn't that the point?

 

[Shikamaru]

Or why Spidey never stopped the burglar, took his chocolate milk that he couldn't afford, and then gave the clerk two cents.

So you think Spider-Man should have stolen money, giving the promoter minus $3k what was stolen is stealing. Riiiiiiiight. Peter let a burglar steal beer and money because of two cents in ASM. In SM1 he was out thousands of dollars. Both got Ben killed. Which burglar would you be more inclined to let go? The one that just stole from the guy that denied you two cents or the one that just denied you $2900?

That's not why Peter let the burglar get away in TASM. It was because the guy completely made fun of him and treated him with a complete lack of disrespect. Peter was 2 cents short so he took 2 cents from that small box or whatever it was where people leave their unwanted leftover pennies for other customers to use if they are a few cents short (and those customers have every right to use them because they're available to the public in case someone in line is a few cents short). But the clerk was being a total *****ebag and didn't let Peter take 2 cents for no apparent reason or at least for no good reason. That's not really the part that made Peter let the burglar get away. It was what followed. Not only was the guy being cheap and didn't let Peter take the cents even though he could (Peter even says "Since when has this been store policy?, basically indicating that Peter has shopped there before thus knows the clerk is just speaking a bunch of BS) but then he proceeds to make fun of Peter's stuttering and financial problems. That's the main thing that angered Peter.


The way it was done in the Raimi films was good too and I admit that I'll always prefer the classic wrestling scenario over anything but I still wonder to this day why Peter only got $100 as opposed to $1000. The guy only gave him $100 because he was in the ring with Bonesaw for 1 minute and the deal was $3000/3 minutes. So by that logic, Peter should've gotten $1000. I get that the guy was taking advantage of the fact that he was a kid but I doubt he could go that far without Peter and other people bringing in logic to show that Peter should get $1000 in the worst case scenario (and I really doubt that Peter wouldn't have realistically said this). Plus, if that's the way the guy usually runs business there, he would've been shut down long ago and his business wouldn't survive.


Funny how people here called Peter a *****ebag due to how the burglar scene plays out in TASM yet when the truth is that Peter in the comics post-spider bite and pre-Uncle Ben's death was the biggest *****ebag there ever was by that logic. One of the main reasons why both Raimi's Peter and Webb's Peter let the burglar get away was because they were angry during the moment and wanted revenge on the respective people that made them angry. Had it not been for their anger and thirst for revenge, even if they would've still let the burglar go, they would've at least had a brief moment where they would've questioned whether or not they should stop their respective burglar. Spider-Man in Amazing Fantasy #15 was far worse than that. He literally had no reason to stop the burglar. He wasn't angry nor was he upset about anything. He just didn't feel like stopping him and never even gave it a thought that he should stop him. On top of that, when asked by the police officer why he didn't do anything, Peter openly told him that that is not his job and that he only looks out and care for "number one" a.k.a. himself.

Anyone else think this is far worse than what Peter did in TASM? I really don't understand why Webb's Peter gets called a *****ebag for the burglar scene while the comic version gets a free pass. If anything, the comic version of Peter was a far bigger prick when he let the burglar get away than both Raimi's Peter and Webb's Peter combined.

 

[Shikamaru]

On top of that, the original burglar had $3000+, Peter would have remedied the entire situation by stopping him, taking all the money and deciding what to do from there. He would have got his expensive car, with which to impress MJ with and lived happily ever after.

I'm not sure if that would be the case. The guy that pissed Peter off previously was right behind the burglar before he ran into the elevator yelling "Stop him!" over and over again. Had Peter done that, he would've been seen taking the money from the burglar by the guy that got robbed and then the guy would've filed a police report and Peter would've been caught since the guy saw his face and has his name too (since Peter said he signed up, as in with his legal name).