Why make the ending so weird

[The Joker]

Extra year? They spent just as much time writing on SM3 (probably more, given the changes that were made) as they did on SM2. The extra year was for post-production, not writing.

How do you know that? How do you know they were not doing both?

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Greed and slaughter are relative terms.

IN star wars to the rebels, luke skywalker was a freedom fighter, to the side of the empire, he was a terrorist jeapordasing their quest for universal order.

In Spider-Man 2, Spidey was an annoyance trying to prevent Ock from ending the earths power deficet.

Now what you don't seem to understand is that Flint commited multiple crimes in this film AFTER the only one he apologised for.

He's broken out of jail, assaulted police officers, kidnapped and attempted murder on spidey's life.

Spider-Man attempted to murder Sandman when he poured water over him, he threw a pumpkin bomb at Harry's head and attacked criminals with motor bikes.

He's also a victim of a scientific accident and he doesn't truelly understand the extent of his condition, yet he doesn't hand himself in.

Neither does Peter

His crusade to cure his daughter was completely irresponsible ESPECIALLY considering the additional power he had.

As is Peter decison to use the black suit.

You live in a society that people PAY for what they do wrong and ultimately, your saying that if they 'say' they are sorry, they are allowed to hurt all the people they please in order to take their own personal pleasures.

Peter is making a decison to allow the Sandman to get the money to cure his daughter, what's the greater eveil, allowing a thief, who could seriously hurt someone if he wanted to but never has, to rob a bank or taking away a little girls last chance to live?

I don't know where this comes from since there are biblical references of people having to pay for what they do.

An eye for an eye
If you're bad you go to hell etc...

If you want to bring that stuff into it,if you are truly sorry for your crimes then God forgives you in confession

This strain of thought is so deeply rooted to most societies, I find it hard for you to say its flawed.

Being sorry is simply not enough, if you take from society, you must be willing to give back or serve one's time at its mercy or aiding it.

What happened at the end of Spider-Man 3 was that Spidey made a decison to weigh up the Sandman threat to society in comparison to the his daughters life. And he decided that the girls life was more important than a few banks getting robbed.

i have a feeling that you have never had anyone close to you been loss due to the carelessness of another...

Have you ever seen someone dying from a curable desease/

 

[Blader5489]

How do you know that?

We know the Raimis and Sargent started writing the script soon after SM2 came out, ~July '04. Grace was cast ~May '05, and had said that the script was nearly finished when he came on--so let's assume the script was finished as of summer '05. Then filming began in January '06 and ended by that June. July '06 to April '07 was spent on the subsequent pre-production, with reshoots beginning in fall '06 and continuing to as recent as April '07.

So there you go, there's your extra year. Most of it was seemingly spent on redoing the third act, in addition to the typical stuff that goes on in post.

 

[November Rain]

In Spider-Man 2, Spidey was an annoyance trying to prevent Ock from ending the earths power deficet.



Spider-Man attempted to murder Sandman when he poured water over him, he threw a pumpkin bomb at Harry's head and attacked criminals with motor bikes.



Neither does Peter


As is Peter decison to use the black suit.



Peter is making a decison to allow the Sandman to get the money to cure his daughter, what's the greater eveil, allowing a thief, who could seriously hurt someone if he wanted to but never has, to rob a bank or taking away a little girls last chance to live?



If you want to bring that stuff into it,if you are truly sorry for your crimes then God forgives you in confession


What happened at the end of Spider-Man 3 was that Spidey made a decison to weigh up the Sandman threat to society in comparison to the his daughters life. And he decided that the girls life was more important than a few banks getting robbed.


Have you ever seen someone dying from a curable desease/

Dude, if you've read my points carefullly, I never bring in actions of a superhero against another super powered being

parker vs harry, harry vs parker, parker vs sandman, venom and sandy vs parker and osborne. All of these were irresponsible and although there may have been intentions to kill, none of them caused any harm in the end.

If two friends get into a fight over a misunderstanding or a heated row and no one end else ends up getting hurt, then one can let it slide and that's when the whole forgiveness thing comes into it.


However if a bad decision leads to you commiting plenty of others and you only acknowledge the first and you are happy doing the rest afterwards, then how sorry are you really?

 

[November Rain]

Err, no their not.
Greed serves no other purpose but to satisfy your own materialistic hunger. It’s a sin.
Slaughter is, and notice my use of words, forgivable to a certain degree only at war. Once one of the sides won, only the chief commanders are prosecuted while the privates are released because they were just following orders. After proper investigations to determine who’s to blame to what crime of course. Hell, I think there are a few Nazi privates left still alive in Germany.


Again, that’s a matter of war, which I don’t want to get into more than I already have.

Robin Hood was a much better example because he and his ‘Merry Men’ was literally just a band of thieves who robbed from the rich to give to the poor, which was against the law. The rich had nothing to do with Robin’s agenda against the Warden and yet they were the target victims. However still, Robin was fair, that’s why he robbed only from the rich, who have more than enough gold and possessions as it is and gave it to the ones who needed it most, he didn’t keep any for himself.


No, I do understand that. And besides your suggestion of them ‘sucking it up’, to which I agreed, I can say this:
The only innocent people he really ever harmed were Uncle Ben and Mary Jane. That’s in relation to Spider-Man so it all falls in the same forgiveness pot.
As for the Spider-Man himself and the policemen - it was their job. If you want to become a cop and not expect to be shot or killed in a risky situation, don’t do it. They must’ve known what to look out for when they accepted the badge and were brave about it. Otherwise those were a bunch of very dump policemen.
And while I would agree that Sandman isn’t the brightest villain in the bunch and he didn’t choose a particularly well planed or just plan of action, yet similarly to Robin Hood he was fair about it and robbed only from banks, which are juristical persons (sorry don’t know the proper definition in English so I don’t know if I translated that one right), and is always insured.


Irresponsible in relation to whom?
And ‘crusade’ is such a christian warmonger word…


No, you keep missing my point and staining it with the wrong words:
1) Most of the time you use the word ‘say he’s sorry’ as in not really ‘being sorry’. Deceit and true penitence are two different things. My point is only based on if the criminal is truly sorry, which I do agree is a hard thing to know for sure in most situations. But in the case of Sandman, we know he’s sorry, that’s what Sam Raimi wanted his character to feel and do, nothing else, no obscure deceit behind it. So if you’re doubting Sandman’s profoundness, you’re saying that Sam didn’t really know his characters very well and had no clue what he was doing with them, as if he had little control over them and they had a will of their own. Now I’m putting words in your mouth and accusing you of things you might not mean but I found no simpler way to explain myself.
2) For this one I’ll just say it more plainly - NOT personal pleasures. What I have been talking about from the very start were personal noble causes;
And not all the people they please but I hope you got the idea…


As I said, we live two worlds apart.
But where I’m only suggesting exceptions such as they are made in times of war, not entirely changing your one-sided materialistic system of physical proof and physical punishment (to which I already gave enough comments of my own), you’re completely in denial and overprotective against even this smallest reform.


Don’t go there. You’ll find me more apathetic to the human race in general then you’d expect.

This for me comes down to a few things

I believe that a man who is wanted by the law regardless of his feelings towards what he did or did not do should comply to the laws of the land he resides in. The legal system that is place is fallible but one should have some faith in it in order to have 'justice' served.

Not only justice towards the suspect but to all his victims as well.

Now the problem with the fact that sandman is sorry is the fact that he is sorry about uncle ben's death throughout the film. HOWEVER this never stops him putting aside all forms of reasoning and acting irrationally for the sake of his daughter.

He never really wants to fight spiderman in the film and only tries to remove him as an obstacle on a scene-by-scene basis. It's not until dark spidey kills him that he goes a lil cuckoo.

My whole problem is that flint's predicament becomes bigger than just killing uncle ben, he's hurt others and has shown that in order to help his daughter, he'll hurt plenty more.

HOnestly, at the end of spidey 3, nothing has changed from when he first got his powers. It's not as if he BECAME sorry, he was sorry from the get go and yet it never affected his actions and he still was willing to cross the line and hurt people.

This man is still clearly dangerous (to me).

Consider this analogy. A vampire is going around involuntarily killing people for blood. He's sorry he's turned into a vampire and hurting people but that doesn't stop his instinct to go out and want to feed. Now instead of going to find help for his condition, he says he's sorry and goes off to potentially feed on an innocent again just to survive.

Now instead of going in and getting help for his condition, he repents and leaves but at the end of the day, the fact he's a vampire is not resolved so what is to stop him feeding again.

This is how i see the sandman situation and that is why i feel he should have handed himself in at the end. Spidey attempting to raise money for his daughter would be the equivalent of offering pig's blood to the vampire so he would no longer have to kill people. However he would still need to serve time for the crimes he commited.

You get my drift.

 

[November Rain]

I don't really dig the robin hood comparison simply because history reflect favourably on him. He could easily have been portrayed like Guidius Fawkes and be seen as an outlaw who needed to pay.

History especially recorded from that period is highly relative to POV. The average man also likes people who seem to fight in his corner. That's the same way why people like Princess diana etc...

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I don't really dig the robin hood comparison simply because history reflect favourably on him. He could easily have been portrayed like Guidius Fawkes and be seen as an outlaw who needed to pay.

I don't see how that makes the comparison less relevant.
And its not history, its allegory. It’s an ideal to reflect the mindset of the particular time period.
Of course it will be subjective to the two opposite demographics it portrays. Which brings me to my next point:

By your two last replies I deduce that you would rather invest more into actions then in emotions. That’s the system and you are part of it, good for you. But as I said, it is one sided and half of the time borderline hypocritical. While there’s always more than one way to view a situation.
How come you are more forgiving of superhero mistakes than those of super villains?
I hear you say that Sandman attempted to kill Spider-Man and then turn around and say that when Spider-Man tried to do so it was mere child’s play, no harm done. Now that’s pure hypocrisy. Violence breeds other violence and Spider-Man in the black suit was just as unstable as a vampire.
And I agree with that particular example. Thing is I am more forgiving of stupid people, to put it simply. Sandman was weak. And I also believe in live and let live. Or as the song goes ‘let die’. I see that Sandman and a vampire would be punishing themselves, bringing more violence upon themselves from the outside and from their own emotional inside. That’s how people get on the brink of suicide. Either we lock them away and let their souls rot permanently, without any hope of bringing them back up as stable human beings or we could let them figure it out themselves. If they still don’t learn to forgive themselves, we’ll call Spider-Man.
So I understand you have little trust in people such as Flint and you are afraid of him. And that’s fine. But as far as I have seen and experienced, people learn more when they are exposed to negative aspects of life. It’s a split actually - some get stronger in character and become smarter and more considering in difficult situations while others never learn and would rather give into fear, depression and revenge.
Bah, I’m rambling too much here.
One final thing:
I’m not saying that Flint shouldn’t give himself up. All I’m saying is that Spider-Man has been down that path and the emotional attachment he had with the people around him brought him back on track. I believe Sandman had the right to be given the same chance, since the potential was there. What I can’t say about Green Goblin or Venom.

 

[IamProdigy]

And ‘crusade’ is such a christian warmonger word…

.....

HIPPIE.

 

[November Rain]

I don't see how that makes the comparison less relevant.
And its not history, its allegory. It’s an ideal to reflect the mindset of the particular time period.
Of course it will be subjective to the two opposite demographics it portrays. Which brings me to my next point:

By your two last replies I deduce that you would rather invest more into actions then in emotions. That’s the system and you are part of it, good for you. But as I said, it is one sided and half of the time borderline hypocritical. While there’s always more than one way to view a situation.
How come you are more forgiving of superhero mistakes than those of super villains?
I hear you say that Sandman attempted to kill Spider-Man and then turn around and say that when Spider-Man tried to do so it was mere child’s play, no harm done. Now that’s pure hypocrisy. Violence breeds other violence and Spider-Man in the black suit was just as unstable as a vampire.
And I agree with that particular example. Thing is I am more forgiving of stupid people, to put it simply. Sandman was weak. And I also believe in live and let live. Or as the song goes ‘let die’. I see that Sandman and a vampire would be punishing themselves, bringing more violence upon themselves from the outside and from their own emotional inside. That’s how people get on the brink of suicide. Either we lock them away and let their souls rot permanently, without any hope of bringing them back up as stable human beings or we could let them figure it out themselves. If they still don’t learn to forgive themselves, we’ll call Spider-Man.
So I understand you have little trust in people such as Flint and you are afraid of him. And that’s fine. But as far as I have seen and experienced, people learn more when they are exposed to negative aspects of life. It’s a split actually - some get stronger in character and become smarter and more considering in difficult situations while others never learn and would rather give into fear, depression and revenge.
Bah, I’m rambling too much here.
One final thing:
I’m not saying that Flint shouldn’t give himself up. All I’m saying is that Spider-Man has been down that path and the emotional attachment he had with the people around him brought him back on track. I believe Sandman had the right to be given the same chance, since the potential was there. What I can’t say about Green Goblin or Venom.

The thing about about spidey's attack on sandman in the film is that it started out as wanting to aprehend someone who was breaking the law and taking advantage of his new powers. The revenge aspect of it took over while under the influence of the black suit(which also needed to be explained somewhat but it never happened).

Again wanting sandman behind bars is not for my benefit but for his own. I don't want him behind bars because he should be forced to pay for the crimes he commited. Honestly, no one can force him, he's above the law and above spiderman. It's about him taking steps to realise that his subsequent actions and behaviour to wanting to help his daughter is irresponsible and he needs attonement, not only from spiderman but from all those lives he affected in order to be a true role model for his daughter. He was acting in that manner because he thought he had no other choice, Spiderman should have let him know that he always has a choice (and given him options to help him).

I don't think that sandman is as stupid as you make him out to be, merely in a desperate situation he doesn't believe he has control of.

Detention centres in my mind are supposed to be areas for spiritual and mental rehabilitation. It's not always somewhere to just put people we don't believe are acceptable to roam with the safe people. If someone is as sorry that flint says he is, he would allow the system to do it's work on him

 

[November Rain]

Trevor, may i suggest you watch this ep of legion of superheroes to see my interpretation of supervillain redemption.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1419156r75DXk2C?searchId=7519516610878233791&rank=4

it's not a bad ep either

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

The thing about about spidey's attack on sandman in the film is that it started out as wanting to aprehend someone who was breaking the law and taking advantage of his new powers. The revenge aspect of it took over while under the influence of the black suit(which also needed to be explained somewhat but it never happened).

Ah, but by your own words, the initial intent does not matter, all that matters are the results.
Spider-Man didn’t want to kill Sandman; he was just ‘caught in the moment’.
Flint didn’t want to kill Peter’s Uncle; he just had ‘bad luck’.

Again wanting sandman behind bars is not for my benefit but for his own. I don't want him behind bars because he should be forced to pay for the crimes he commited. Honestly, no one can force him, he's above the law and above spiderman. It's about him taking steps to realise that his subsequent actions and behaviour to wanting to help his daughter is irresponsible and he needs attonement, not only from spiderman but from all those lives he affected in order to be a true role model for his daughter. He was acting in that manner because he thought he had no other choice, Spiderman should have let him know that he always has a choice (and given him options to help him).

You know, I detest lines like ‘It’s for your own good’. Because that’s just false sincerity. If you really wanted your children or anyone else to think for themselves, you wouldn’t be forcing your own opinion on them.
You disagree with Sandman’s decision because it’s not what you would’ve done yourself. That’s a life lesson right there btw.
And you’re exactly right, as I’ve been saying the same thing - no one can force him, he is outside of the system just like Spider-Man is, so I believe we should let him free to think for himself. Only he can decide what’s best for him and he made his choice.
And again - irresponsible in relation to whom?

I don't think that sandman is as stupid as you make him out to be, merely in a desperate situation he doesn't believe he has control of.

‘Stupid’ was an oversimplification. That’s what I meant by weakness.

Detention centres in my mind are supposed to be areas for spiritual and mental rehabilitation. It's not always somewhere to just put people we don't believe are acceptable to roam with the safe people. If someone is as sorry that flint says he is, he would allow the system to do it's work on him

If only that were true. In a different message board one of my debate buddies made an excellent argument - in jail 99% of all criminals either have their spirits scared broken or they get involved into the gang mentality, either way they never really learn a thing.
And let’s look at it realistically shall we - after breaking out of prison and doing all those things that he has done, no way would Flint be allowed to leave the super secure prison premises ever again. And that’s if he he’s lucky enough not to get the death penalty.
And as I said, one should think for himself, especially even more if he’s able to operate outside the system.
That one’s actually a ‘the chicken or the egg’ kind of issue, if you really think about it.

Thanks for the link but it doesn’t work for me apparently, maybe I’ll try later once the traffic calms down.
Meanwhile, I would like to make one of my own references to Battlestar Galactica’s 3rd season finale - Crossroads. I guess you would be spoiled, if you haven’t seen any of the episodes, and knowing the series helps a lot but, to get to my exact point, in the Plot section scroll down to Part II and read the paragraph that begins with either ‘After a recess…’ or ‘Lee answers…’. Too bad the actual speech is not transcribed word for word…
And yes, I know that it has barely anything in common with Sandman’s situation and is a war matter I previously didn’t want to get into but I believe that’s the best example of forgiveness versus revenge.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Trevor, may i suggest you watch this ep of legion of superheroes to see my interpretation of supervillain redemption.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1419156r75DXk2C?searchId=7519516610878233791&rank=4

it's not a bad ep either

Well, I’ve seen it now…
You know even as a child I hated when super criminals suddenly had a turn of the heart and gave themselves up. Have villains no integrity of their own whatsoever?
Now I see these cartoons and think of them as extremely sugar-coated oversimplifications of moral discipline, teaching kids to do the system’s ‘right thing’ and that everything outside of that is just irrational rebel thinking.
And ‘the monkey rode on the rocket ship’? Lame!
How old are you anyway, Rain?

That said, it indeed was very similar to Sandman’s situation. And yes, it was his choice to give himself up, as it was Sandman’s, but they had no obligation to do so.
I see you’re trying to make it sound like an impersonal opinion but you’re still shoving your own logic into Flint’s personal choice.

 

[November Rain]

Trevor, what you are suggesting is a land where the strong crush the weak and ultimately do as they please as long as no one is there to stop them?

That was what the green goblin suggested in the first spidey film are you ultimately agreeing with him?

Is that the message you wish to send to your kids, allowing them to get stepped on because they aren't strong enough (or vice versa)?

I'm at home with a crap internet connection at the mo but when i get back to sheffield, i'll try out your link.

The main problem i have is that if someone truelly believes themselves to be sorry of commiting an act then they are willing to repent or step back into line of society or the order..

If a christian repents, they are supposed to step back into line and not keep sinning and continually commiting the same things. One learns from their mistakes and attempts to not make them happen.

By having flint not step back in line and resume his position in jail means that he may be sorry for killing uncle ben but he isn't sorry for commiting the actions he's done in trying to save his daughter (or the attempted murder of spiderman or assault of mj since they are never addressed).

 

[November Rain]

Another thing is that you keep going on about uncle ben's death since that is all that is covered in the conversation but the basis of my argument has never been that initial crime.

Everything he's done from breaking out of prison, to stealing to assaulting police officers to kidnapping mj should be addressed.

If he went to court and you were on the jury and you heard that he commited all these crimes and never wished to answer for them, how could you truelly believe he was sorry and that he wasn't just spinning you a line.

As for the system itself, I believe that all of those who are truelly sorry manage to keep their heads down and brunt it out. It's not as if he is in a position to be man handled. Whether he gets out or not is not his concern. his concern (like any father's) is about his daughter which is why i said let spidey guarantee the funds to help her and then he would have no purpose to commit more crimes and he can serve his respective time.

Being sorry is all good and great but what prospects can he have being on the run, giving more heart ache to his wife and daughter, it's not like his wife is going to take the stolen money anyway, she wants nothing to do with him.

He's stuck in a self perpetuating loop. He's like someone in serious debt who is stealing to pay his debts but the pawn shops won't take stolen goods yet he continues and gets in more and more debt and steals and hurts more innocent people. He's sorry and whatever but he never stops.

If you can explain one real life case of an individual in this predicament, i've got nothing. I can't argues with ideas, i can only base my arguments on how a realistic ending would have been better based with what happens in reality (i.e. kidnappers giving themselves in after being talked into in by police officers even though at the time, they have all the cards).

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Trevor, what you are suggesting is a land where the strong crush the weak and ultimately do as they please as long as no one is there to stop them?

That was what the green goblin suggested in the first spidey film are you ultimately agreeing with him?

Is that the message you wish to send to your kids, allowing them to get stepped on because they aren't strong enough (or vice versa)?

No, revisit some of my previous posts for a clarification.
You may not agree with it but frankly I’m getting frustrated that you keep not getting it and oversimplifying it in such a negative way.

The main problem i have is that if someone truelly believes themselves to be sorry of commiting an act then they are willing to repent or step back into line of society or the order..

If a christian repents, they are supposed to step back into line and not keep sinning and continually commiting the same things. One learns from their mistakes and attempts to not make them happen.

That is the system and the system will always be hunting down Sandman no matter what. Your character from Legion chose to be part of the system, so he accepted everything that was coming with it. Sandman didn’t and probably will never be ever again.
When a beast is lose in the city we consider it a ‘threat’ to us, we never think about what the system has done to the beast that made it behave so widely. If we do, we only have ourselves to blame. We do not prosecute the beast. What made Hitler become Hitler?
Sandman’s arrest doesn’t serve the system other than for its own moral satisfaction. It only should be between the criminal and the people directly involved, no one else, but it never is.
Sandman has the potential to never bother anyone ever again. If it was up to me and if he committed another serious crime other than for his own survival do to a manhunt, I would personally issue the order on his permanent incarceration.

By having flint not step back in line and resume his position in jail means that he may be sorry for killing uncle ben but he isn't sorry for commiting the actions he's done in trying to save his daughter (or the attempted murder of spiderman or assault of mj since they are never addressed).

No, he’s not, because he believes he was doing the right thing for the sake of his daughter because the system wouldn’t do it for him. Yes, first of all it’s not very bright, I agree. But it’s also outside of the system’s logic. How dare he go against it!? That’s hypocrisy and egoism from both their and his side. The system was killing his daughter. He was only doing it all out of love.

You said it yourself that you would beat up the bystander for the medicine. That’s going against the system but is it really a sin to act illegally out of love? You said you would accept the consequences, Flint didn’t. But as long as he is doing it out of sincere love, I have no problem with it. How many people would you kill so someone you love could survive?

Another thing is that you keep going on about uncle ben's death since that is all that is covered in the conversation but the basis of my argument has never been that initial crime.

Everything he's done from breaking out of prison, to stealing to assaulting police officers to kidnapping mj should be addressed.

I did address it. You just keep forgetting it. Or I’m getting the impression you’re simply not entirely reading my replies.

If he went to court and you were on the jury and you heard that he commited all these crimes and never wished to answer for them, how could you truelly believe he was sorry and that he wasn't just spinning you a line.

I don’t, and I mentioned that problem already. Pity that we don’t have a sincerity detector invented yet.
But I have an advantage over the clueless jury, because I saw the movie. But other than that I have the power to trust.

As for the system itself, I believe that all of those who are truelly sorry manage to keep their heads down and brunt it out. It's not as if he is in a position to be man handled. Whether he gets out or not is not his concern. his concern (like any father's) is about his daughter which is why i said let spidey guarantee the funds to help her and then he would have no purpose to commit more crimes and he can serve his respective time.

And you keep fantasising about that possibility as if it almost happened. But nothing is as honky dory as that in real life.
And his concern is how best he can help his daughter. Either it involves incarceration or not it’s for him to decide.
He could certainly take it but not many can.

Being sorry is all good and great but what prospects can he have being on the run, giving more heart ache to his wife and daughter, it's not like his wife is going to take the stolen money anyway, she wants nothing to do with him.

Well, frankly that’s not my problem and not my choice to rationalise. It was his step, I can see it may hurt him a lot but I’ll let him figure it out.

If you can explain one real life case of an individual in this predicament, i've got nothing. I can't argues with ideas, i can only base my arguments on how a realistic ending would have been better based with what happens in reality (i.e. kidnappers giving themselves in after being talked into in by police officers even though at the time, they have all the cards).

You either want to be part of the system or you don’t, either way you accept the consequences.
I don’t know how good of examples the following could be but here are links to some great perspectives:
1
2
3
4
5

 

[November Rain]

the majority of the cases listed in those five references have the guilty party re-aligning with the system whether it was their choice or not. I didn't see the video one but there was only one tha occurred in lebanon where the guilty party was still out there

What kinda life can sandman lead by staying out of the system then? He's wanted by the system and has condemned himself to a physical change by deviating from it an a long sentence outside of it.

You seem like a religious person and i've mentioned it's just the same as turning your back on God (from that POV). Religious people are taught that they lead empty unfulfilled lives outside of worship. If the deviation is done ONLY based on the assumption to help loved ones and it doesn't (based on the reasons i mentioned in my last point), surely there is no reason to then keep strayed away from it.

I think it comes down to the fact you feel he is no longer a threat while His circumstances havent changed since he broke out of jail so i see no reason why they would stop when he floated away.

Systems fail plenty of people but it doesn't justify them going out and trying to solve their problems as individuals, people need to solve their problems as neighbourhoods, societies, demographics. I understand that there are few people on this planet that have all their desired in comparison to all those suffering but i can't justify the irrational actions of taking it out on the indirectly innocent (this is assuming that all the west is guilty of sitting idol).

To a certain extent i can understand and justify with some of the main concerns raised by the taliban against the west and what not. What i can't justify is the means they go about advertising their cause and taking it out in the indirectly responsible/innocents.

it'd be similar to a terrorist blowing up and killing people and being given forgiveness by one family, it doesn't justify the fact that the other 19 had no say or he broke the law of the land. Being forgiven or sorry should be kept COMPLETELy separate from the any federal laws.

This is really one of the times when i would like to speak to someone face to face. If i am coming across as annoying then i apoligise i simply don't get your point of view entirely (in snippets yeah but ideal ones to me which don't reflect the situation in the film).

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

the majority of the cases listed in those five references have the guilty party re-aligning with the system whether it was their choice or not.

Which is irrelevant in my opinion.

What kinda life can sandman lead by staying out of the system then? He's wanted by the system and has condemned himself to a physical change by deviating from it an a long sentence outside of it.

Again, that’s his choice and his problem. Just because we may find it illogical doesn’t mean he may not figure it out.
To put it more bluntly - that’s the kind of life that is outside of the system and the fact that you can’t comprehend it means that you’re not really used to think ‘outside of the box’.

You seem like a religious person and i've mentioned it's just the same as turning your back on God (from that POV). Religious people are taught that they lead empty unfulfilled lives outside of worship. If the deviation is done ONLY based on the assumption to help loved ones and it doesn't (based on the reasons i mentioned in my last point), surely there is no reason to then keep strayed away from it.

I did mention that I’m not a particularly religious person. How could you miss that?
To be specific - I’m against organised religion. And I believe that forgiveness or vengeance has nothing to do with being religious or not because religion teaches duality just like every other system in this life.

I think it comes down to the fact you feel he is no longer a threat while His circumstances havent changed since he broke out of jail so i see no reason why they would stop when he floated away.

True.
So all it really comes down to is:
You fear him and treat him with mistrust, while I’m willing to forgive him and give him a second chance.
Wouldn’t you agree?

You fear the unknown and wish for it to be controlled by you or anyone else in your political party.
You tell me, if my assumptions are false, but I personally believe it’s weak and dump to do so.

Systems fail plenty of people but it doesn't justify them going out and trying to solve their problems as individuals, people need to solve their problems as neighbourhoods, societies, demographics. I understand that there are few people on this planet that have all their desired in comparison to all those suffering but i can't justify the irrational actions of taking it out on the indirectly innocent (this is assuming that all the west is guilty of sitting idol).

To a certain extent i can understand and justify with some of the main concerns raised by the taliban against the west and what not. What i can't justify is the means they go about advertising their cause and taking it out in the indirectly responsible/innocents.

it'd be similar to a terrorist blowing up and killing people and being given forgiveness by one family, it doesn't justify the fact that the other 19 had no say or he broke the law of the land.

Sigh…extremes and comparisons…
I don’t think you can really compare Sandman’s situation to anything else because it is fundamentally unique. The system assumes that everything’s the same and it can apply itself to any situation. But I believe exceptional situations require an exceptional approach.
One of the misconceptions you are constantly making about my theory is that you keep taking the criminal’s love and nobility out of the equation and filling it with greed, egoism and every other wrong reason.
And another is that the criminal would pick victims at random without any other purpose but to satisfy his lust for whatever (power; greed; vengeance; and the like). Which in Sandman’s situation was clearly not the case.
It is selfish and ignorant of other people’s lives but what more noble cause do we have other than true love for another? Throughout this debate I’ve been justifying that cause and that cause alone.

Being forgiven or sorry should be kept COMPLETELy separate from the any federal laws.

While I believe it should be the basis for any trial.
Two serious questions I would really like you to answer me from your own point of view:
1) How can separating the soul from the law not make you a drone?
And 2) As I mentioned before - how is it fair for a barely involved neutral system decide the outcome of a criminal instead of the directly involved victim(s)?

This is really one of the times when i would like to speak to someone face to face. If i am coming across as annoying then i apoligise i simply don't get your point of view entirely (in snippets yeah but ideal ones to me which don't reflect the situation in the film).

I feel that you’re not really paying attention to some of my words.
Which once again begs the question - how old are you really?

Oh and have you read that Battlestar Galactica entry yet? It’s such a great series. Mature and controversial too.

 

[FNSpidey]

First of all, Rain and Trevor, kudos to you guys for an intelligent conversation. We don't have many of those here.

I think it all comes down to two things.

1) Did Sandman do what he did out of stupidity (or weakness) or out of selfishness? And consequently, will he stop his criminal life or go on? I believe it's the first, he shows on many occasions that he doesn't really want to hurt anyone. He's just so desperate to help his daughter that he crosses many a line.
In the end he understands that and all he wants is to be with his daughter until she dies or somehow (legally) she's cured. It's not spelled out, but I can't see him returning to crime after that. He'd been tormented by guilt for a long time for a crime (an accident, it should be noted) he commited. After realizing he almost repeated the same mistake in his mission to help his daughter AND finally being forgiven for what he did, I really can't see how he could start all over again.

2) What's more important, the emotional or social resolution of the story? I lean towards the first. Peter realizes that Sandman, as himself, did some 'bad' things, but he's not really a 'bad' man.
Remember how he initially envisioned Ben's death and Marko's behaviour? He now sees he's not "evil' and, like his own situation, maybe things are a lot grayer than he thought. And to his great credit, he finds the strength to forgive him and give him a chance to be with his daughter.
Maybe it's not socially right, maybe it's opposing the law, but emotionally, it closes the story. He shows strength of character, he redeems himself and gives a man the chance to save what's left of his life. As Trevor said, it's easy to punish someone. Spidey goes beyond that and does what feels right.
Of course, Rain's point about the other victims is valid, but I believe that the film shows that outside of damaged properties and some injuries, no other harm was done, so it's at least honourable to allow this man to save his future.

It should also be added that Peter could not stop Sandman even if he wanted to AND he didn't have the time, his friend was dying a couple of floors below. Although that's not relevant to the film's themes.
Plus, if one was to argue that Peter doesn't have the right to let Sandman go, let's not forget that he doesn't have the right to hunt him down either. Vigilantes are well outside the law.

So, to sum up, I think it's right that the filmmakers decided to focus on the emotional side of the story, since it emphasizes the film's themes. Plus, the visual imagery is great. Sandman's dissolving into sand signifying his redemption and withdrawal and the sun rising behind Pete, Harry and MJ, showing that, in the end, every one of those characters has passed the test and is morally restored (although one of them has to pay the price).

 

[Blader5489]

First of all, Rain and Trevor, kudos to you guys for an intelligent conversation. We don't have many of those here.

I think it all comes down to two things.

1) Did Sandman do what he did out of stupidity (or weakness) or out of selfishness? And consequently, will he stop his criminal life or go on? I believe it's the first, he shows on many occasions that he doesn't really want to hurt anyone. He's just so desperate to help his daughter that he crosses many a line.
In the end he understands that and all he wants is to be with his daughter until she dies or somehow (legally) she's cured. It's not spelled out, but I can't see him returning to crime after that. He'd been tormented by guilt for a long time for a crime (an accident, it should be noted) he commited. After realizing he almost repeated the same mistake in his mission to help his daughter AND finally being forgiven for what he did, I really can't see how he could start all over again.

2) What's more important, the emotional or social resolution of the story? I lean towards the first. Peter realizes that Sandman, as himself, did some 'bad' things, but he's not really a 'bad' man.
Remember how he initially envisioned Ben's death and Marko's behaviour? He now sees he's not "evil' and, like his own situation, maybe things are a lot grayer than he thought. And to his great credit, he finds the strength to forgive him and give him a chance to be with his daughter.
Maybe it's not socially right, maybe it's opposing the law, but emotionally, it closes the story. He shows strength of character, he redeems himself and gives a man the chance to save what's left of his life. As Trevor said, it's easy to punish someone. Spidey goes beyond that and does what feels right.
Of course, Rain's point about the other victims is valid, but I believe that the film shows that outside of damaged properties and some injuries, no other harm was done, so it's at least honourable to allow this man to save his future.

It should also be added that Peter could not stop Sandman even if he wanted to AND he didn't have the time, his friend was dying a couple of floors below. Although that's not relevant to the film's themes.
Plus, if one was to argue that Peter doesn't have the right to let Sandman go, let's not forget that he doesn't have the right to hunt him down either. Vigilantes are well outside the law.

So, to sum up, I think it's right that the filmmakers decided to focus on the emotional side of the story, since it emphasizes the film's themes. Plus, the visual imagery is great. Sandman's dissolving into sand signifying his redemption and withdrawal and the sun rising behind Pete, Harry and MJ, showing that, in the end, every one of those characters has passed the test and is morally restored (although one of them has to pay the price).

Well said.

 

[November Rain]

All right, i'm on my way back to sheffield today so in a couple of days time, i will go through this thread again from start to finish

 

[November Rain]

Before i go i will summarise my points of view...


I personally believe that although sandman was ashamed for the way that
he killed uncle ben. He got forgiveness and that's fine.

HOwever the reason he turned to crime in the first place was because of her daughter's condition way back then? IN his desperation he turned to crime to help with her medication.

NOw years gone by in prison, he is still sorry for uncle ben's death but he still breaks out of jail for his daughter. All the actions up till the end of the film are ultimately about his efforts to save his daughter.

Now ultimately his daughter's condition hasn't changed and by previous convictions, he's still going to need to do something about her illness. He's shown he has been weak about her on two separate occassions so I don't see any reason why he would stop now.

For me, his actions and criminal actions towards his daughter have NOTHING to do with uncle ben's killings so gaining peter's forgiveness has no bearing
on those actions of his. similar to how how what colour shirt you wear has no bearing on whether you win the lottery or not (omiting chaos theory).

For me, flint was part of the system before he got desperate with his daughter's condition and then stay out of it. Although he got caught and brought in for another crime he went against the system again and broke out. For me his only reason to stay out of it was solely for his daughter. I don't see the logic of using stolen goods to pay for her stuff, or how his wife is goint to accept the money based on the fact he is a fugitive etc.

If this is his problem solely than fair enough but it's not his problem alone, it's the city's problem because sandman is obviously not aware of this (and hasn't been made aware by anyone) and evidence shows he is more than likely to carry on comitting theft since no one has offered any sort of support for her condition.


I'll leave out my arguments about wanting to give himself back in to the police but i do feel if one truelly feels guilty about something, they require a physical action to voice their inner attonment. Even Ock and Harry 'acted' to help gain forgiveness by the act of self sacrifice.

If he remains free, his life serves no purpose except for to rob,steal and hurt others based on his perception of helping his daughter. The same way ock thought robbing stealing and hurting others was justifyable for the future of his work and mankind.

In my eyes, he will remain a pariah to society and the best place for him will be the Jail (to allow him to attone for all the OTHER CRAP HIS DID and to remove this threat) and the only real way to get him to go would be for spiderman to generate money for him (which would be his act to show his has truelly forgiven him).

i dunno why that's so bad...

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Thank you FNSpidey for your contribution. Couldn’t have said it better.
And I’m eagerly awaiting your full response, Rain.
Meanwhile, I’ll reply to some of your specific statements.

I'll leave out my arguments about wanting to give himself back in to the police but i do feel if one truelly feels guilty about something, they require a physical action to voice their inner attonment. Even Ock and Harry 'acted' to help gain forgiveness by the act of self sacrifice.

See, as I mentioned before this is martyrdom mentality - as soon as a villain doesn’t prove his turning of heart by sacrifice, which potentially could end his life, he’s not so convincing anymore.
Ock and Harry’s sacrifices had a purpose - lives were at stake. Sandman’s surrender serves no true purpose other than for his own punishment and for the satisfaction of the community.

If he remains free, his life serves no purpose except for to rob,steal and hurt others based on his perception of helping his daughter. The same way ock thought robbing stealing and hurting others was justifyable for the future of his work and mankind.

Despite of what I said about his mental and will capabilities, or the lack thereof, no human is truly that one dimensional. And you are prejudging him. The end of SM3 was a true turning point for him. Now he can either start over with a clean slate or turn back to crime once again. Either way there’s no way of knowing what he may eventually choose. And I don’t consider Flint to be a big enough threat for us to make those choices for him.

In my eyes, he will remain a pariah to society and the best place for him will be the Jail (to allow him to attone for all the OTHER CRAP HIS DID and to remove this threat) and the only real way to get him to go would be for spiderman to generate money for him (which would be his act to show his has truelly forgiven him).

i dunno why that's so bad...

It’s not, but it’s not his choice either.

 

[Nightmare]

Now ultimately his daughter's condition hasn't changed and by previous convictions, he's still going to need to do something about her illness. He's shown he has been weak about her on two separate occassions so I don't see any reason why he would stop now.





...

Exactly, He's not gonna stop till he gets enough money to save his daughter. So it makes it seem as if Spiderman hears about him robbing more places he wont do anything cause he forgave him???

 

[FNSpidey]

At the end of the battle royale, Sandman is apparently shocked at the mess this whole thing has left and stands down. He says he didn't want it to come to this and the way I see it, he realizes his mission to save his daughter through crime has almost made him repeat the same mistake that has been tormenting him.

Here comes Peter with his "we always have a choice" speech, essentially "we can always decide to do what's right", so Sandman, after finally being forgiven for what he sees as his biggest sin, leaves determined to follow the right path this time. That is, to be with his daughter ("all I have left now is my daughter") and try to legally cure her. Of course, we never see where his coice leads, but that's not relevant. What matters is that Marko, through Peter's example, has finally made the right choice. So he peacefully lets the wind carry him away.

This has always been apparent to me. I can't see any other way to interpret the quotes I've mentioned. I'm not saying I'm right, but to me at least, it makes sense.

 

[The Joker]

At the end of the battle royale, Sandman is apparently shocked at the mess this whole thing has left and stands down.

I didn't see him shocked about what he did. I didn't see him shocked at all. It looked like he stood down because he saw the nephew of the man he accidently killed.

You see he had a big sandy clobberin' fist ready to go again, which implies he was about to have another go at Spidey until he saw who he was.

He says he didn't want it to come to this and the way I see it, he realizes his mission to save his daughter through crime has almost made him repeat the same mistake that has been tormenting him.

Well, he'd have to pretty dumb to only realize that then. What did he think he was going to do when he and Venom went after Spidey, sit him down and give him a good talking to?

They both went there with the intention of killing him, and Sandman obviously wasn't above putting an innocent girl in danger to do it, either.