Sandman Is Not A "Villian" in SP3.. He is a Victim of the Black Suit

[ShadowBoxing]

I remember not long ago a trailer for Spider-Man 2 came out, and in it Mary Jane says "I'm getting married". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/trailers-screenplay-X24079-10-2. Even one prior where Spider-Man admits to not loving her. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/trailers-screenplay-X23324-10-2. Even saying "I don't [love you]". Intentially misdirecting us to believe that John Jameson was going to marry Mary Jane.

I remember fans saying, the marriage will get interrupted by John going into space. John will be forced to leave her, and all these other cockamamy explanations. A the while people believing what was in the trailer comes true. Who was right? Every fan who said, she won't marry him.

Raimi was laughing at everyone who fell for that, and my sense tell me this is the same. By the way if you read either spoiler I poster, neither says Flint Marko is the killer.

 

[ShinyBlackSuit]

Well actually there are several notable instances where people don't report seeing murders for years. Either because they assume someone else did, or out of fear. A man was once shot at point blank range in the middle of times square, and not one witness stepped forward...if not for being caught on camera they never would have convicted him.

And of course many muggings, rapes, murders, even thefts go unreported for years.

Back to what I said: plot device. Would Spider-Bites really give people super powers, no. Would Spider-Man really be able to operate without police finding out his true identity, no. The FBI would immediately be on his trail, heck the friggin US army would probably want him to be used as a Government weapon.

Certain things in movies are taken for granted. In this case, there is a plot device regarding Sandman. We don't know why it exists, or why the cops took so long to find it out...but it does, for the sake of the movie plot.

Shadowboxing, it is admirable for me to see you continually rebuff these dunderheads with your overencompassing logic. Your patience with these lesser beings who are unworthy of the marvelous film Sam Raimi has wrought is a clear inspiration to all of us who enjoy a superb intellect far superior than the common man.

Adieu, adieu.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I want to play devil's advocate here for a moment.

Let's say Sandman is the killer, and like Dragon says he learns his lesson; he does not kill because revenge is wrong.

So he does not kill Sandman. Okay so what does that teach me? Well let's assume he does what Spider-Man usually does; beats him up and leaves him for the police. He goes to prison after trail. I learned that if someone kills my family, and I beat them up and leave them for the police - they go to jail.

Sounds to me like the lesson I learned upheld revenge, not classified it as wrong.

Why do police arrest suspects? Because police have no personal stake in the arrest. Provided the suspect offers no resistence he is cuffed and read his rights, then he awaits trial. No revenge committed right, because the victims in question were not alloud to enact ANY punishment on the potential victimizers.

So what is Spider-Man suppose to do, not attack Sandman and leave him soley to police jurisdiction. Kind of defeats the purpose of Spider-Man. If he is suppose to stop criminals, but cannot because doing so upholds revenge; you ruin the theme of the movie.

Revenge is like a poison, because poisons make us sick inside.

So what his turning point according to Dragon, beating up MJ? Ruining his marriage? Having an affair? How does that have anything to do with revenge. The suit is evil correct, it makes him hurt other people. But what if he had the suit and never was told "This man is the real killer", well he'd still be a massive self destructive jerk just not one after Flint Marko. Because what do we know, he beats up Harry in the preview in black costume. Last time I checked Harry doesn't kill his Uncle. He beats up MJ [maybe], she doesn't kill his Uncle.

Furthermore Harry, Eddie, and Sandman all seem to want revenge on something: None of whom have "suits". The suit simply is a device by which to enact revenge, it is not revenge itself. Him getting rid of the suit does not teach us: revenge is wrong. Instead it teaches us that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the spoilers say he becomes "drunk with power" not "drunk with revenge".

So Sandman does it, according to Dragon, because otherwise that would be bad?

So Sandman is the killer. And what, now Spider-Man is responsible for inadvertenly causing the death of an innocent, "the carjacker". Because that man [most likely] would not have died had Parker let the cops get to him.

Your conclusion is that Spider-Man does not kill. But if anything we've seen that Spider-Man is anything but the perfect, noble, Supermans of DC.

In movie one, as you tried to convince us, Spider-Man always knew "with great power comes great responsiblity". I quote Socrates: "If you know the good you do the good. If you don't do the good, you don't know the good". If Spider-Man was responsible, why is his first inclination to use his powers to make a quick buck? That seems highly irresponsible. Why is his second inclination to avoid stopping a criminal because "it's not my problem". Neither action suggests he knows much of anything about responsibility.

In movie two he gives up being Spider-Man, even saying "Spider-Man is no more". Why? because he wants MJ (again) and wants a normal life with NO responsibilities in regards to his powers. How does he learn otherwise, when MJ is captured.

We are talking about a character who, in the comics, has quit more times than I've posted in this thread. Has made more mistakes with women than I will in a lifetime. Has cost the life of a family member.

Peter Parker is not the upstanding, morals morals morals, character you make him out to be. He is an average joe who falls to selfishness, greed, pride, and the temptations of life at every turn.

If you take away that guilt of his Uncle's death, he is nothing but Peter Parker; star wrestler. His origin is meaningless, his decision to become Spider-Man is fueled by ignorance and caused him to "kill" a carjacker for a crime he did not committ.

That really completes the character arc doesn't it? Having him more confused about his lot in life than he was before he became Spider-Man?

 

[stillanerd]

Okay. Things have been rather heated over the last bunch of pages, so let's slow things down and clarify some things.

First- I completely hate the idea of Sandman being Ben's killer. I said that when I first read the script summary at the beginning of the year, and then again when the pics were posted. I feel it both betrays the origin, and over-simplifies this story. Sandman is a bad man because he ACTUALLY killed Ben.

However- I would hate even more the idea of Marko being innocent. There's just no point to it.

As I said tto stillanerd- it's over-stressing the point. Again- it's like this:

Stabbing someone is wrong. Stabbing someone in the heart is REALLY wrong.

Revenge is wrong. Revenge against someone innocnet is REALLY wrong.

Once you get to the first wrong, you don't need the second.

Wait a minute. You stated this:

Sandman being innocent doesn't make PETER'S story more powerful. Making him guilty makes Peter's story more powerful. All making Sandman innocent does is stress a point that doesn't really matter.

Making him guilty also makes Sandman a greater threat, making the film more exciting, as he's a more ruthless villain. You know he'll go to any length to achieve his goal.

So essentially, I guess the whole idea of Sandman being guilty of Uncle Ben's murder making "Peter's story more powerful" is, to put it bluntly, a bunch of crap? Got to say, Dragon, you'd make an excellent lawyer.

But seriously, I got to hand it to you for playing devil's advocate, and at least we AGREE on something: making the Sandman the killer WOULD betray Spider-Man's origin and, as you yourself said, over-simplifies the story. And that's what a lot of people have been pointing out all along and why they believe the idea of Sandman may not have killed Uncle Ben is being given serious consideration--because leting something like this stand would be a huge blunder on the part of Sam Raimi, one that makes the whole organic webshooters debate look tame by comparison.

If Raimi was going to have Sandman be connected to Uncle Ben's murder (which if you think about it, could have been any number of Peter's B-list rogues like Electro, Scorpion, Vulture, what have you) then why not have the twist that Sandman actually DIDN'T pull the trigger? You say that it making Sandman innocent doesn't really matter. Well, I say, if the theme is "revenge is like a poison" then, as I and other posters have been saying, the point can be driven home more effectively if Sandman was not the killer but, because of Spidey's obession, he ends up crossing the line--such as aiding Venom in kidnapping MJ and/Gwen for instance in order to seek revenge on Spidey.

Yes, Sandman is already a criminal, but in the course of the movie, it appears he becomes a monster, first by accidentally falling into a particle accelerator and then by Spidey's obession with seeking vengence for his Uncle's death. And I believe that idea can get across better if Sandman WASN'T the guy who pulled the trigger. Yes, I like your analogy of "killing is wrong, but stabbing in the heart is REALLY wrong (not to mention your marriage example ) but I believe the idea that "revenge is poison" can come across even better if Spidey's need for revenge is misplaced and comes about because he doesn't have all the facts--which is identical to Harry and possibly Eddie stories in that they themselves are obessed by revenge but don't have all the facts, and how Sandman will likewise become obessed with revenge against Spidey because he doesn't understand why Spidey has such a mad on for him. It's a classic parallel storytelling device.

 

[apatheos]

I think it was hit on the head a while back when someone stated that the true villian in the film is revenge. Not Sandman, Harry, or even the Symbiote. Every one of those "villians" are just the plot devices Raimi is using to further the theme of revenge.

Peter is going to be forced to forgive and forget, just as Harry will (supposedly) do as well. Brock on the other hand will likely remain lost to it.

Achieving redemption, of course, would then be the goal of the story.

 

[Dragon]

Wait a minute. You stated this:



So essentially, I guess the whole idea of Sandman being guilty of Uncle Ben's murder making "Peter's story more powerful" is, to put it bluntly, a bunch of crap? Got to say, Dragon, you'd make an excellent lawyer.

Not crap. I'm saying of the three choices we're discussing, my pick would be:

1. Marko not involved AT ALL in Ben's shooting. But we know at this point that isn't going to happen.

2. Marko guilty of Ben's shooting.

But seriously, I got to hand it to you for playing devil's advocate, and at least we AGREE on something: making the Sandman the killer WOULD betray Spider-Man's origin and, as you yourself said, over-simplifies the story. And that's what a lot of people have been pointing out all along and why they believe the idea of Sandman may not have killed Uncle Ben is being given serious consideration--because leting something like this stand would be a huge blunder on the part of Sam Raimi, one that makes the whole organic webshooters debate look tame by comparison.

If Raimi was going to have Sandman be connected to Uncle Ben's murder (which if you think about it, could have been any number of Peter's B-list rogues like Electro, Scorpion, Vulture, what have you) then why not have the twist that Sandman actually DIDN'T pull the trigger? You say that it making Sandman innocent doesn't really matter. Well, I say, if the theme is "revenge is like a poison" then, as I and other posters have been saying, the point can be driven home more effectively if Sandman was not the killer but, because of Spidey's obession, he ends up crossing the line--such as aiding Venom in kidnapping MJ and/Gwen for instance in order to seek revenge on Spidey.

Yes, Sandman is already a criminal, but in the course of the movie, it appears he becomes a monster, first by accidentally falling into a particle accelerator and then by Spidey's obession with seeking vengence for his Uncle's death. And I believe that idea can get across better if Sandman WASN'T the guy who pulled the trigger. Yes, I like your analogy of "killing is wrong, but stabbing in the heart is REALLY wrong (not to mention your marriage example ) but I believe the idea that "revenge is poison" can come across even better if Spidey's need for revenge is misplaced and comes about because he doesn't have all the facts--which is identical to Harry and possibly Eddie stories in that they themselves are obessed by revenge but don't have all the facts, and how Sandman will likewise become obessed with revenge against Spidey because he doesn't understand why Spidey has such a mad on for him. It's a classic parallel storytelling device.

Okay.. To simplify this discussion a bit.

As I mentioned to Spider Man, looking over all the leaked and official material, I honestly don't believe that the revenge theme is the one they're going for. So exploration of Sandman's genesis as supervillain is probably not going to happen anyway. He's going to be the same villain throughout.

What the theme appears to be to me is what they keep repeating in the trailers- Peter's battle with his dark side. That being the case, the revenge idea is only the catalyst that makes him vulnerable to the symbiote's influence. It appears that he defeats Sandman midway through the film, so we simply won't be seeing Peter obsessing over him throughout the film. Only for about the first half of the film. So Sandman is merely Peter's doorway to the darkside. But we see Peter's battle with himself in his relationships and his growing brutality. It's his nearly hurting MJ that wakes him up. Not anything having to do with Marko. And again, this is reasonable since MJ is for better or worse, really the motivator for Peter in all these films.

That being the case, I would rather Sandman be a ruthless villain as he was portrayed in the comics.

 

[-Æ-]

yet again an example of potrayal in the comics isn't as likely to come to be in the movies.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Not crap. I'm saying of the three choices we're discussing, my pick would be:

1. Marko not involved AT ALL in Ben's shooting. But we know at this point that isn't going to happen.

2. Marko guilty of Ben's shooting.

False dilema. My choice would be, Sandman (as you say) having nothing to do with it. Sandman not being the killer, OR anything else that I felt worked out. I cannot possibly forsee all possibilities, and neither can you. Raimi could pull a rabbit out of his hat like no one has ever seen before, maybe even make Captain Stacy use Spider-Man to hunt down an otherwise innocent man (NOW THAT would be a twist).

Okay.. To simplify this discussion a bit.

As I mentioned to Spider Man, looking over all the leaked and official material, I honestly don't believe that the revenge theme is the one they're going for.

Well none of us have seen the movie, and I'd disagree looking at that same material. However movies often have more than one theme, or more than one plot. There are certainly dominant theme(s), but just go on Sparknotes and see how many themes they have listed for books they review, it's not just one.

So exploration of Sandman's genesis as supervillain is probably not going to happen anyway. He's going to be the same villain throughout.

Where did you get this crazy idea. He is a bad guy, therefore he is always bad. I think this theory pretty much flies out the window when you realize at some point during the film we realize all this stealing is for HIS SICK DAUGHTER. Before he just looked like your two bit bank robber, now he has *some* heart.

And what about past films. Doctor Octopus, Green Goblin: were they the same villain throughout the film. No?!?. Doctor Octopus overcame his own inner demons so as "to not die a monster" returning himself to the good soul he once was. Green Goblin was possessed by a formula, and certainly wasn't evil (albeit not perfect) as Norman Osbourne.

What the theme appears to be to me is what they keep repeating in the trailers- Peter's battle with his dark side.

Prehaps, at which point the movie should end when Peter removes the suit. Why even have the other villains then if the story is just about Peter and the Dark Side/Suit.

That being the case, the revenge idea is only the catalyst that makes him vulnerable to the symbiote's influence.

But he picks up the symbiote by chance, even [from what I understand] AFTER he is told about Sandman's [potential] murder. He seems to want revenge standing in that police station. You cannot just leave those things unresolved.

Even if you have Peter forgive him, it still doesn't resolve the fact that because he fought Sandman it [most likely] leads to his capture and imprisonment, therefore upholding that his actions were justified AND Harry and Eddie (who both were wrong to seek unjust revenge) were not because they were incorrect in their assumptions.

The movie, with Sandman innocent essentially turns Peter into his own worst enemy; Harry Osbourne.

It appears that he defeats Sandman midway through the film, so we simply won't be seeing Peter obsessing over him throughout the film. Only for about the first half of the film.

Raimi said Sandman was the MAIN villain, so this seems very doubtful.

So Sandman is merely Peter's doorway to the darkside.

But before you said the suit is Peter's darkside, nothing Sandman does has anything to do with him being tainted by the suit. It finds him randomly.

But we see Peter's battle with himself in his relationships and his growing brutality. It's his nearly hurting MJ that wakes him up. Not anything having to do with Marko. And again, this is reasonable since MJ is for better or worse, really the motivator for Peter in all these films.

And she still might be, but that teaches us nothing about Peter's revenge, which as the trailer says "is like a poison". "Revenge makes you beat your wife", is that the message . If so that's a pretty lame message.

That being the case, I would rather Sandman be a ruthless villain as he was portrayed in the comics.

In the comics he was a guy who tended to try to reform every chance he got. He even joined the Avengers. Far from a ruthless villain.

 

[VENOMOUS!!]

Good points. the only big enemy here is the sybiote suit (venom)

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

sandman shot uncle ben, he escaped from prison, sandman isnt a master mind super villian, hes a crook who happens to go hide some place from the police and gets transformed into a "sandman", the real villian is the symbiote, the symbiote is trying to take over peter and his mind, sandman is a crook, hes trying to rob money for his family so that they wont be broke, everytime spiderman tracks him down, sandman has to fight back because he has nothing else to do, sandman has a daughter and a wife, he has a family, uncle bens killer and marko must have been friends for a long time, thats why they were togeather the night marko shot uncle ben, peter wants revenge on marko for killing his uncle, the symbiote made peter even more angry, thats what the symbiote wanted to do, peter always has to remember though, that "with great power comes great responsibilty", we got two crooks, uncle bens killer and flint marko, they were both at the wrestling arena that night , marko manages to get away.