[Movie] Spider Man 3: No Way Home

[Egomaniac]

And Ben would have let him go ... at least how it was written.

I am not arguing it is good or even makes sense from a real world perspective.
But, if it had ended "Nah, Bro, you need to go to jail" would have made real world sense, but not narrative sense.

It is just bad writing of the movie.

Ben would not have just let him go. Ben would want Peter to forgive him but he would also want Peter to try and convince Marko to turn himself in. He would not want him to just let him go.

"With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" doesn't just apply to Peter.

Sandman has great power. He chose not to use that power responsibly.

- - - Updated - - -

yeah, but he didn't kill other people so, not that dangerous, with Ben was an accident, he tried to steal money for his daughter and everyone in his condition and power would do the same, it could simple say he was forced by Eddie who knew his daughter,(with he used to lure him) and he, could not take venom

I guess "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" only applies to Peter then?

Sandman isn't dangerous? He was willing to kill Spider-Man. If he hadn't been helping Venom...Harry would still be alive. Peter only went to Harry for help because he couldn't fight them both alone.

Venom didn't threaten Marko's kid. He just said "Together we can kill Spider-Man" and Sandman was in.

[Darththeo]

Ben would not have just let him go. Ben would want Peter to forgive him but he would also want Peter to try and convince Marko to turn himself in. He would not want him to just let him go.

"With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" doesn't just apply to Peter.

Sandman has great power. He chose not to use that power responsibly.

Again, you are bringing in real world logic into the narrative.
Narratively, Ben would have let Marko go. It is still terrible writing, but it is what would have happened with how the story sets things up.

Per Flint: [Ben] said to me, "Why don't you just put down the gun and go home?"

Narratively, Ben would have let Sandman go after all, Flint just attempted grand theft auto, was involved in armed robbery, etc. The narrative set up letting Sandman go. Does it make sense using real world logic? No, but it is 100% internally consistent.

Again, not saying you have to like the scene, like the writing, etc. But when you say "Ben wouldn't have let Sandman go." you are factually wrong about the narrative.

[Syegfryed]

I guess "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" only applies to Peter then?

Sandman isn't dangerous? He was willing to kill Spider-Man. If he hadn't been helping Venom...Harry would still be alive. Peter only went to Harry for help because he couldn't fight them both alone.

Venom didn't threaten Marko's kid. He just said "Together we can kill Spider-Man" and Sandman was in.

Yes he isn't that dangerous, even when he was stealing one he didn't kill cops or other people, the only killing that happened with him was an accident, he is a troubled person trying to do whatever it takes to save his child, that is not someone you condemn to life imprisonment.

Eddie did mentioned his daughter to Marko, obviously he implied that if he didn't help Venom would take care of that, he said many times he didn't want to hurt spider, and others, but he was indeed lured, but like @Dartheo said, is more of a bad writing thing than a logical thing

[Syegfryed]

Bad emotions like turning Spider-Man into a romcom? Harry and MJ’s stupid kitchen scene doesn’t get a ton of attention thanks to the massive cringe of Peter’s disco lessons, but it should. Add in the dumb hoverboard for Goblin and it’s just a bad movie. If they’d left all that bullshit out and just done Sandman it would have been much better. That’s pretty much the only redeeming aspect of the film.

i never said it was a good movie though, i just said it is better than ASM2

[Egomaniac]

Again, you are bringing in real world logic into the narrative.
Narratively, Ben would have let Marko go. It is still terrible writing, but it is what would have happened with how the story sets things up.

Per Flint: [Ben] said to me, "Why don't you just put down the gun and go home?"

Narratively, Ben would have let Sandman go after all, Flint just attempted grand theft auto, was involved in armed robbery, etc. The narrative set up letting Sandman go. Does it make sense using real world logic? No, but it is 100% internally consistent.

Again, not saying you have to like the scene, like the writing, etc. But when you say "Ben wouldn't have let Sandman go." you are factually wrong about the narrative.

Ben did everything in his power to stop Marko. In the situation, the only power Ben had was to try and convince him to stop. If he had more power, he would have done more. Because Power = Responsibility.

You want Narrative Consistency? How about this:

In Spider-Man 1 Peter lets a criminal go and, because he does that, Ben Parker is killed. Peter blames himself and swears he will never let that happen again.

In Spider-Man 3 Peter once again lets a criminal go. Only now he fully understands that there could be consequences to that decision.

So, let's say Marko gets put into another situation where he "accidentally" kills someone. Who is Peter going to blame then?

- - - Updated - - -

i never said it was a good movie though, i just said it is better than ASM2

And that's your opinion. You are free to have it. My opinion is that ASM2 is the better of the bad movies. Not a good movie. Just slightly less bad.

[Shadowferal]

i don't think it is largely for kids, at least not comics, at least not those days

Yea...I believe it started at the "bronze age" of comics. Which depending on perspective began either with Gwen Stacy's death, or Green Arrow's sidekick, Speedy's, drug addiction.
Despite that, comics were still fun to read for the better part of two decades to follow. They would eventually become something that was definitely not fun to read at all, and certainly not for children.

[Ragedaug]

At this point Sony should just allow Andrew to say he is on it, after the leaks there is not much he can do

ooooor...now hear me out, this is a crazy idea I know, but...maybe just wait till the movie is out and be surprised by what/who is in it?

[Darththeo]

Ben did everything in his power to stop Marko. In the situation, the only power Ben had was to try and convince him to stop. If he had more power, he would have done more. Because Power = Responsibility.

You want Narrative Consistency? How about this:

In Spider-Man 1 Peter lets a criminal go and, because he does that, Ben Parker is killed. Peter blames himself and swears he will never let that happen again.

In Spider-Man 3 Peter once again lets a criminal go. Only now he fully understands that there could be consequences to that decision.

So, let's say Marko gets put into another situation where he "accidentally" kills someone. Who is Peter going to blame then?

Yes, because character growth from the Start of a first movie to the End of the third is "narrative inconsistency."

Can't possibly be that Peter learned that there is more ways to handle situations than just put the bad guy in jail.

You are ignoring growth and things Peter learns to make a blanket statement.

[Ragedaug]

They let him talk about the leak on Jimmy Fallon. Those shows get clearance to discuss that kinda shit before hand. If they wanted people to “be surprised” they shouldn’t be letting him talk about leaks on talk shows.

Not sure what that has to do with what I said...but, OK.

...are you trying to say, if the studio doesn't want you to be surprised, then there's no way you could possibly have any self control to not try to find out all the things?

I guess I'm not really sure what your point is.

[Shadowferal]

The problem with dealing with Sandman is that he's powerful. At least a couple of levels above Spidey. There's no jail...no SHIELD containment here since they were never mentioned.

[Egomaniac]

Yes, because character growth from the Start of a first movie to the End of the third is "narrative inconsistency."

Can't possibly be that Peter learned that there is more ways to handle situations than just put the bad guy in jail.

You are ignoring growth and things Peter learns to make a blanket statement.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that Peter, at the very least, would have tried to talk Marko into turning himself in. To try and pass on the lesson that he learned from Uncle Ben about Power and Responsibility.

And you didn't answer the question. Peter lets Marko go. Marko kills again. Who does Peter hold responsible? Marko? Sure...he's the one that did the killing...but he wouldn't have been in a position to if Peter had not have just let him go free. The guilt for that would be even worse than what he feels regarding Ben....because this time he knew what could happen by letting a dangerous criminal go free and he did it anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with dealing with Sandman is that he's powerful. At least a couple of levels above Spidey. There's no jail...no SHIELD containment here since they were never mentioned.

Meh, that's something that can be addressed in universe. They don't have SHIELD in the X-Men movies and they still had a prison that could hold Magneto. I mean, since Marko doesn't appear to need to eat or breathe....they could just toss him in an airtight container and leave him there.

[Darththeo]

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that Peter, at the very least, would have tried to talk Marko into turning himself in. To try and pass on the lesson that he learned from Uncle Ben about Power and Responsibility.

And you didn't answer the question. Peter lets Marko go. Marko kills again. Who does Peter hold responsible? Marko? Sure...he's the one that did the killing...but he wouldn't have been in a position to if Peter had not have just let him go free. The guilt for that would be even worse than what he feels regarding Ben....because this time he knew what could happen by letting a dangerous criminal go free and he did it anyway.

Again, you are placing real world logic into the movie rather than judge the movie on what you are shown. You are arguing for the movie to do tell rather than show. I would argue that the movie shows use that Flint is learning that lesson by realizing what Ben was trying to do via Peter. There is no need to have Peter say it there as that is more tell than show.

Flint being allowed to go free fits the other Raimi movies where the villains don't get the ending they deserve. Norman dies, and outside of a few people, no one knows he was a murderer and gets to be placed to rest peacefully. Octavius gets to sacrifice himself for the damage he did and everyone acts like he didn't cause mass property destruction and risk the entire city. Harry and Peter end up fighting alongside each other and Harry doesn't go to jail for all the shit he did and gets to die being seen as a "hero."

It is even arguable that Eddie Brock/Venom got an ending they didn't deserve either (but in the opposite direction to all the others.)

As for hypothetical questions, they are just evidence of you placing real world logic into the movie. It doesn't matter because what you are saying doesn't happen to our knowledge any more than Flint letting go and choosing to live away from people.

[Shadowferal]

Meh, that's something that can be addressed in universe. They don't have SHIELD in the X-Men movies and they still had a prison that could hold Magneto. I mean, since Marko doesn't appear to need to eat or breathe....they could just toss him in an airtight container and leave him there.

Sandman is roughly ten times stronger than Spidey. There really isn't a way to hold him. And being immortal only adds to the problem. The fact is, there are times when you can't power your way through. Talking was the best option.

[Egomaniac]

Again, you are placing real world logic into the movie rather than judge the movie on what you are shown. You are arguing for the movie to do tell rather than show. I would argue that the movie shows use that Flint is learning that lesson by realizing what Ben was trying to do via Peter. There is no need to have Peter say it there as that is more tell than show.

No, Im applying the in-universe logic to the situation. Peter's given no guarantee that Flint is going to go straight. Nothing in Flint's circumstances have changed. He still has a sick daughter he needs money to care for.

Flint being allowed to go free fits the other Raimi movies where the villains don't get the ending they deserve. Norman dies, and outside of a few people, no one knows he was a murderer and gets to be placed to rest peacefully. Octavius gets to sacrifice himself for the damage he did and everyone acts like he didn't cause mass property destruction and risk the entire city. Harry and Peter end up fighting alongside each other and Harry doesn't go to jail for all the shit he did and gets to die being seen as a "hero."

I don't think anyone but Peter knows that Octavius ended up sacrificing himself. To the rest of the world he's still the bad guy.

As for hypothetical questions, they are just evidence of you placing real world logic into the movie. It doesn't matter because what you are saying doesn't happen to our knowledge any more than Flint letting go and choosing to live away from people.

Again, that's not "real-world" logic. That's Peter's Logic. If Sandman killed again, he would blame himself because he let Marko go.

- - - Updated - - -

Sandman is roughly ten times stronger than Spidey. There really isn't a way to hold him. And being immortal only adds to the problem. The fact is, there are times when you can't power your way through. Talking was the best option.

There's plenty of ways of holding him. Spider-Man has beaten Sandman by using a shop vac.

[Darththeo]

No, Im applying the in-universe logic to the situation. Peter's given no guarantee that Flint is going to go straight. Nothing in Flint's circumstances have changed. He still has a sick daughter he needs money to care for.

Again, that's not "real-world" logic. That's Peter's Logic. If Sandman killed again, he would blame himself because he let Marko go.

Again, despite your insistence to the contrary, you are using real world logic to judge the movie.

Even granting you that Peter would "blame himself", that's not relevant to the movie as you are judging a completely hypothetical situation you made up to justify why the movie should have been different. That is by its very nature using real world logic to judge the movie.

Your hypothetical situation did not happen in the movie. Therefore, the possibility it could happen is irrelevant.

[Egomaniac]

Again, despite your insistence to the contrary, you are using real world logic to judge the movie.

Even granting you that Peter would "blame himself", that's not relevant to the movie as you are judging a completely hypothetical situation you made up to justify why the movie should have been different. That is by its very nature using real world logic to judge the movie.

No, I'm using how Peter would think through the situation. By letting a killer go free he's risking another Uncle Ben type incident. That's not "real world logic". That's me understanding the character better than the writers.

Your hypothetical situation did not happen in the movie. Therefore, the possibility it could happen is irrelevant.

It's very relevant...because it's how Peter thinks.

[Darththeo]

No, I'm using how Peter would think through the situation. By letting a killer go free he's risking another Uncle Ben type incident.



It's very relevant...because it's how Peter thinks.

Which is using Real World arguments and logic to judge the movie.

Hey, this thing that doesn't happen in the movie would be bad therefore the scene makes no sense.

You are using real world logic period. This isn't a debatable point.

You are literally ignoring the lessons Peter learned throughout the trilogy, that sometimes you have to let the bad guy go because it is the right thing to do. You don't have to like it, but you are just arguing real world stuff and claiming you aren't. Essentially, you are saying Peter should have remained Spider-man 1 Peter throughout the entire Trilogy and learned nothing more.

[Egomaniac]

Which is using Real World arguments and logic to judge the movie.

Hey, this thing that doesn't happen in the movie would be bad therefore the scene makes no sense.

You are using real world logic period. This isn't a debatable point.

Again, that is not "real world" logic. That's the logic of the character in the fictional world.

Peter knows, first hand, what the consequences can be for letting a criminal go free. It's the entire basis of the character.

If Uncle Ben never died...Peter would never have become a Super-Hero. At best, he'd be a douche-bag celebrity. At worst, he'd become a Super-villain himself.

Here's Peter in his first appearance...before he gets Spider-Powers



And here's him after he creates his webshooters.... still before Ben is killed.



He's shallow, he's arrogant, he's vindictive.

That's a Super-Villain in the making.

But Uncle Ben dies because he let a criminal he could have stopped go free...and he takes a hard turn.

[Darththeo]

Again, that is not "real world" logic. That's the logic of the character in the fictional world.

Peter knows, first hand, what the consequences can be for letting a criminal go free.

And Peter knows, first hand, the power of a second chance.

You making up hypothetical situation that could possible happen that the movie shows zero inclination of happening to justify why a scene is bad is the very definition of using real world logic to judge the movie. Yes, in the real world, letting a criminal go is a bad thing because they have a high likelihood of repeating the behavior. You are using real world logic while denying you are using real world logic.

[Egomaniac]

And Peter knows, first hand, the power of a second chance.

You making up hypothetical situation that could possible happen that the movie shows zero inclination of happening to justify why a scene is bad is the very definition of using real world logic to judge the movie. Yes, in the real world, letting a criminal go is a bad thing because they have a high likelihood of repeating the behavior. You are using real world logic while denying you are using real world logic.

It's not a "hypothetical situation"...it's literally how he thinks.

I'm not saying he should beat Marko to death. I'm saying he should convince him to turn himself in.

Yeah, Peter believes in second chances... what did Marko do to earn one?