The Amazing Spider-Man Uncle Ben's Killer

[Anno_Domini]

So you're assuming when we see a whole lot of cops show up very quickly at that scene where Spidey becomes a big hit during that time with people recording him is NOT the night that the cops were following the car thief, which, once again, is the only actual car thief we see Spidey take down while he's trying to steal a car?

 

[Picard Sisko]

So you're assuming when we see a whole lot of cops show up very quickly at that scene where Spidey becomes a big hit during that time with people recording him is NOT the night that the cops were following the car thief, which, once again, is the only actual car thief we see Spidey take down while he's trying to steal a car?

Those run-on sentences....

Its a possibility that this isn't the car thief Stacy was referring to.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Lol.....I'm sorry, but I am not aware that we're not allowed to have run-on sentences on forums. My sincere apologies

And...you may think it's a possibility, I certainly do not. The coincidences all point to that specific scene of Spidey stopping the car thief to be the topic they were talking about at the dinner table. Anything else would just seem so off the wall when nothing else hints at it as much as that specific car thief scene.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I never said you're not allowed to have run-on sentences, but they are just very irritating to read.

 

[Anno_Domini]

So is reading the word 'aloud' when it should be 'allowed'.

Edit: Gracias.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Got me there. Spelling error. Run-on sentences I'd say are much more irritating.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Of course you would. Mine would be spelling errors

 

[Picard Sisko]

Anno, our friendship can be compared to that of Spock and McCoy.

 

[Jexx]

I think that they were talking about that specific situation that was shown in the movie.

I just think that the cop that shot at spidey was being reckless as hell. Hope Stacy fired his ***.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Hey, I've heard some crazy stories about reckless cops in NYC. What you saw in the movie was nothing.

 

[Jexx]

Now I know why Spidey makes fun of cops :P

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

Hey, I've heard some crazy stories about reckless cops in NYC. What you saw in the movie was nothing.

True enough. Lol. At least it was a good way to show Petey as a bullet-timer who effortlessly dodges point-blank gunfire. But holy cow, my first time watching that scene it was soooo evident that cop nearly executed the thief. Barely missed the guy several times. What an idiot.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Has anyone heard this story which took place in Queens?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident

 

[Jexx]

Dude, the car thief must of shat his pants.

 

[Picard Sisko]

He probably did.

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

Has anyone heard this story which took place in Queens?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident

I remember that very well. It was absolutely deplorable. New York Police use a lot of racial profiling and other questionable tactics. I've seen many documentaries and been a victim myself on occasion. I won't get to deep into the subject since my passions run high, but there are good cops out there to. The unfortunate angry bitter cops I've had the unfortunate luck of stumbling upon just give the rest a bad reputation unfortunately.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The cop who almost shot the car thief is nothing compared to things that have really happened. Its upsetting when you hear some of the stories (such as the Sean Bell incident).

 

[Anno_Domini]

I think that they were talking about that specific situation that was shown in the movie.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

No he wasnt,he was twisting the rules to not give the money
Award for 3 minutes means anything under 3
Saying that he knocked him out in 2 and hence doesnt deserve the money was being as bad as the thief
So when does a guy get the award? When he knocks him out in exactly 3 minutes and not 2 minutes 59 seconds?

The ad specifically said, "$3K for 3 minutes." That means Peter had to stay in the ring for a full 3 minutes in order to win the 3 grand. There's no wording that states he will win the full amount if he "wins" the fight or "knocks out" Bonesaw in "less time" than the 3 minutes. You're reading into that and assuming and that's where you are wrong. I agree that the Ring promoter or whoever he was, was indeed being a prick and should have been better about giving Peter the money but unfortunately he is still correct. Going by the wording in the ad, Peter is not owed a dime because he failed to meet the criteria, plain and simple.

On the contrary,I would feel nothing wrong if a guy denies me the 2 cents because its store policy,he is just an employ following orders.I would stop acting like jerk and buy something cheaper

If anyone was acting like a jerk it was the store clerk/owner. There's nothing wrong with enforcing a store's policy but there's a difference between doing it in a civil and/or nice way rather than being a complete A-hole. The clerk was talking down to Peter and treating him like s**t. That's what led to Peter not trying to help the clerk later on. Would you give a helping hand to someone that just got done either humiliating you or treating you like crap? I'd have a tough time doing so.

As I said earlier,imo not chosing to get involved was not being irresponsible in that situation,its what a normal person would do
In SM1 he went out of his way to let him escape and that was being far more irresponsible

So, a normal person would have stepped in front of the guy running with a bag of money and holding a gun? Yeah, sure. lol.

Thats fine but what about the fact that Uncle Ben acted stupidly and tried to wrestle a man,that was a stupid thing to do and he was responsible for his death

Uncle Ben acted under his own accord and should take responsibility for his death because he tried to wrestle a gun away from the robber. Here's the thing...Peter did NOT see that happen. He hears a shot and then goes to investigate only to find Ben lying on the ground, dying. Peter then learns it is the same guy that just robbed the convenience store. Peter sees this as, HE, didn't stop the robber when he had the chance and therefore feels responsible for Ben's demise. Peter never saw what happened so in his mind, the thief may have shot Ben in an aggressive type manner or just because or to clear a path so he could escape.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

edit

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Made a few corrections.

Actually, I don't think Peter was necessarily concerned about the girl he was helping. I see this way: Peter hates Flash, and this was his moment to get even for how he treats him, and other students, too.

Oh I talked about Gordon, but concerning the girl you're absolutely right

 

[TheWallCrawler]

In the most simple form, one can view what that thief did to be bullying the store clerk by pushing over things to steal his money such as how a bully steals money from someone the bully views inferior to him. Bringing that up, Peter should have sympathized with him.


What's the difference between a bully and a thief, though? Uncle Ben can stand up to a thief when he's way older, but his supposedly 'smart' nephew can't?


Being an ass or a dick is no excuse for Peter to not do anything, imo.

before I say this, did I understand this right? In a nutshell: You're saying that Peter's character is inconsistent because he stood up for the other bully victims before but later didn't stand up for the store clerk, am I correct?

Ok, let's say that the thief was, in a way, a bully. Peter was already in a bad mood and the clerk was just being a dick at him, unlike the previous people who were just innocent victims Peter sympathized with

No, it's not excusable for Peter to do nothing when the clerk was an *******, but that's the whole point of the scene and the lesson. The movie never says it was the right thing to do, in fact the VERY OPPOSITE, it was supposed to be irresponsible. Until that point of the movie Peter's choices weren't based on what was responsible or not, it's personal preference. If Gordon was an ******* to Peter he wouldn't have done anything, because he never thought it was his responsibility to defend him, it was just that he felt bad for him

It's hard to explain this any clearer, I hope you understand my point

 

[Anno_Domini]

But once again....not doing anything because someone was a dick when he became a dick for backing out of his promise with Captain Stacy? I just hate the way they wrote Peter in the film. Peter learned nothing in the first film and just made Raimi's Peter so much more intelligent with his actions in one film. Webb could have this idea of Peter learning something in the sequel or at the end of the trilogy, but....man, his Peter is a *****e even with powers.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

But once again....not doing anything because someone was a dick when he became a dick for backing out of his promise with Captain Stacy? I just hate the way they wrote Peter in the film. Peter learned nothing in the first film and just made Raimi's Peter so much more intelligent with his actions in one film. Webb could have this idea of Peter learning something in the sequel or at the end of the trilogy, but....man, his Peter is a *****e even with powers.

True, Peter didn't learn much from the first film. I wouldn't say "nothing" though

in order for the sequel to work there has to be serious consequence to Peter's choice to break the promise

 

[AF3619]

But once again....not doing anything because someone was a dick when he became a dick for backing out of his promise with Captain Stacy? I just hate the way they wrote Peter in the film. Peter learned nothing in the first film and just made Raimi's Peter so much more intelligent with his actions in one film. Webb could have this idea of Peter learning something in the sequel or at the end of the trilogy, but....man, his Peter is a *****e even with powers.

i´ll say more mature
how is he a d**k? seriously , he didn´t broke his promise yet ,even if he did we know how that will turn out
and he just became spiderman in the end of the film, he didn´t do a lot of crime fighting as spiderman i´ll say any ,so he hasn´t become completly responsable and he doesn´t know how this life will affect him or his loved one´s in the future

True, Peter didn't learn much from the first film. I wouldn't say "nothing" though

in order for the sequel to work there has to be serious consequence to Peter's choice to break the promise

i hope Electro says to him the same in Ultimate Spiderman "after we deal with you, we will find out who you are and we´ll find your family and i personally will fry them, each one of them"