The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - User Review Thread! - SPOILERS! - Part 5

[The Joker]

Yea. I wonder why people who hate his movie... constantly come here? If I hate a film, I'm going to forget about it and not bother posting in boards after I've made my point or feelings clear.

Because it's Spider-Man related so it's going to attract Spider-Man fans. Just like topics about lousy Spider-Man comics attract Spider-Man fans. We love to discuss the good and the bad of Spider-Man because it's all Spider-Man related. For me that comes with being a fan of something that is so diverse. With the good comes the bad. And some of the best discussions come from discussing the bad stuff.

This isn't a fan forum. I don't set foot near the thread in this forum that's dedicated to people who love the movie.

Peter let the robber go because he didn't have one more penny and the clerk was being a dick about not letting him take a free penny to pay for his milk. Peter wasn't owed anything. He didn't earn that money. He wasn't promised anything. Ben died over one cent for chocolate milk. That is literally what happened. That is the price for Ben's life. In SM1, Ben died over $2900 because Peter wanted a car to impress a girl. He was owed that money and felt cheated. In ASM1, Ben died over one penny to pay for chocolate milk because Peter was having a bad day. It's really hilarious and sad that the writers and Marc Webb thought that one up.

But it's not the clerk's fault Peter didn't have enough money or was having a bad day. The clerk deserves to be robbed at gunpoint because he was a jerk? What does that say about Peter in ASM? Had Peter had enough money, nothing would have happened. Yes the clerk was a jerk and had he given it for less than cost nothing would have happened either. You saying the clerk was a jerk changes the blame to the clerk for not making Peter's day better and causing Peter to let the robber go. It's Peter's fault Ben dies in every iteration and Peter is at fault here too. They got that right. What is sad and pathetic is that the stakes the writers wrote for Ben's death is literally one cent over chocolate milk. What a pathetic plot point. I wouldn't be angry over one cent where I allow someone to be robbed and beaten at gun point...over one penny. It's so ridiculous. It's sad that this series has dumbed down a great mythos were Ben died over one cent and Gwen died over pushing a button that only she could push. The situations the writers put these characters in for perilous plot points is so so very sad. Future generations will definitely remember Sheen's death for years to come. The way Peter wanted that milk...I could see it in his EYES.

 

[spiderman2]

Webb didn't cut most of the scenes out. Sony must've agreed that that scene wasn't so good to attract the audience but they put it into one of the deleted scenes anyway.

And who in their right mind thought that bringing in Gwen Stacey, top her as venom, emo Peter, ***** MJ, the butler, dance sequence, sandman killing ben, venom repealing his face, and giving most of the characters lack of character and less screen time and they just filmed them because?

Look by the pre visualization and deleted scenes of the first movie and what teekay and yurka said in the second movie including the commentary of the second film Webb is a great guy for spiderman

Excally its not like the cut stuff didn't do any thing almost ever thing that was cut would have improved the movie by giving charaters that needed more screen time more screen time or giving the movie more action or more charater devemonent. You could make like a whole extra movie with all that was cut form asm1 and same thing with asm2.

 

[LizardMan07]

That's just two deaths. We can get into how this series made Peter predestined to be Spider-Man through Richard's DNA experiments...a huge bastardization of the mythos. This series is flawed from top to bottom.

No, it didn't.

Theoritically the Vector for Peter's transformation was only available outside his immediate surroundings, if he hadn't been at Oscorp that day, no Spider-Man.

That's the crux of it, that his transformation still relied on a random event. The only difference is they've given a pseudo-scientific explanation for it this time around.

 

[LizardMan07]

I'm interested as to how you can agree with Chaseter Joker?

The other day, you were saying that "Nobody is responsible for other people's choices"

Now, Peter's choice put the robber in a situation where Uncle Ben chose to attack the Robber. No other civilian did and no other civilian died.

From what we were discussing the other day, doesn't that mean its Uncle Ben's fault?

I'm just a tad confused, as what I was saying allows for Uncle Ben to not be at fault, whereas what you were saying would seem to place Uncle Ben at fault.

If your previous logic would lead you to that conclusion, how can you agree with Chaseter? Who's blaming Peter? Not saying he's wrong, but it seems to be a bit of a logical 180 from the other day, right?

 

[The Joker]

I'm interested as to how you can agree with Chaseter Joker?

The other day, you were saying that "Nobody is responsible for other people's choices"

Now, Peter's choice put the robber in a situation where Uncle Ben chose to attack the Robber. No other civilian did and no other civilian died.

From what we were discussing the other day, doesn't that mean its Uncle Ben's fault?

I'm just a tad confused, as what I was saying allows for Uncle Ben to not be at fault, whereas what you were saying would seem to place Uncle Ben at fault.

If your previous logic would lead you to that conclusion, how can you agree with Chaseter? Who's blaming Peter? Not saying he's wrong, but it seems to be a bit of a logical 180 from the other day, right?

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm agreeing with his him saying Peter is at fault for not stopping the robbery when he could have. He had the power to do the responsible thing, and he didn't. The reason he didn't is because of chocolate milk.

Peter didn't make the robber pull the trigger, but he allowed the opportunity for that to happen when he could have stopped it, that's where the blame lies, and his reasons for doing that are very pathetic. He allowed an armed and dangerous man to commit a crime, and then run free to go and commit more potential crimes.

Nobody is saying it's Peter's fault that the robber is a criminal who chose to rob the store and kill Ben. Those were the criminal's choices. Not Peter's. It's Peter's fault for not stopping him and for giving him the opportunity to do what he did when he had the ability and opportunity to stop him. Peter knowingly and willingly let an armed criminal run free out of petty spite over chocolate milk.

What we were talking about was Peter getting Gwen to stay in NY. That action is not what killed her. Because she could easily have lived if she had decided to stay out of the obvious danger she was not able to handle. She's just a powerless civilian. There is no onus on her in that situation to do what she did, morally or otherwise. Peter is a super powered guy, and his choice directly allowed that criminal to escape and shoot Ben. Peter had one of two choices to make in this situation. Stop the criminal or let him go. Both had repercussions, but one had good ones that would save lives and stop more potential crimes, the other would allow for more crime to happen. Which choice was the wrong one? The one he made. His choice directly allowed for a criminal to go free and do what he did.

 

[SpideyK]

Y'all mother*****as need Jesus.

 

[Perry9]

Y'all mother*****as need Jesus.

 

[Spider-knight]

He let the guy go because the guy was an *******. It had nothing to do with the milk. That joke is getting really old real fast-_-

 

[LizardMan07]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm agreeing with his him saying Peter is at fault for not stopping the robbery when he could have. He had the power to do the responsible thing, and he didn't. The reason he didn't is because of chocolate milk.

Peter didn't make the robber pull the trigger, but he allowed the opportunity for that to happen when he could have stopped it, that's where the blame lies, and his reasons for doing that are very pathetic. He allowed an armed and dangerous man to commit a crime, and then run free to go and commit more potential crimes.

Nobody is saying it's Peter's fault that the robber is a criminal who chose to rob the store and kill Ben. Those were the criminal's choices. Not Peter's. It's Peter's fault for not stopping him and for giving him the opportunity to do what he did when he had the ability and opportunity to stop him. Peter knowingly and willingly let an armed criminal run free out of petty spite over chocolate milk.

What we were talking about was Peter getting Gwen to stay in NY. That action is not what killed her. Because she could easily have lived if she had decided to stay out of the obvious danger she was not able to handle. She's just a powerless civilian. There is no onus on her in that situation to do what she did, morally or otherwise. Peter is a super powered guy, and his choice directly allowed that criminal to escape and shoot Ben. Peter had one of two choices to make in this situation. Stop the criminal or let him go. Both had repercussions, but one had good ones that would save lives and stop more potential crimes, the other would allow for more crime to happen. Which choice was the wrong one? The one he made. His choice directly allowed for a criminal to go free and do what he did.

The Criminal still chose to kill and Gwen still chose to go to the powerpoint. Both these decisions were facilitated by Peter, nobody else. If Peter stops the robber, he doesn't kill Ben, if Peter didn't stop Gwen going to England, she wouldn't have followed him around into the Powerplant.

They're mutually the same. That's my point, both don't have the oppurtunity to do what they did because of Peter.

They're either both not at fault, or they both are. Simple as that. The reasons may be different, but the basic premise of both events aren't.

Thanks for explaining your position, I don't really understand it, and that's probably my faut, but I respect it nethertheless.

 

[The Joker]

The Criminal still chose to kill and Gwen still chose to go to the powerpoint. Both these decisions were facilitated by Peter, nobody else. If Peter stops the robber, he doesn't kill Ben, if Peter didn't stop Gwen going to England, she wouldn't have followed him around into the Powerplant. They're mutually the same. That's my point, both don't have the oppurtunity to do what they did because of Peter.

But they're not the same because Gwen wasn't in any position where she had to make the choice she made. She just took it upon herself to help when it wasn't her place, or her moral obligation. She could have done what the millions of other New Yorkers did and just stayed out of it. The sensible thing. Whereas Peter had to decide whether to let this criminal go or not because he had the power and the moral obligation to stop him. His choice to let him go directly led to what happened next.

Whereas none of the above applied to Gwen, and the only choice that directly led to Gwen's death was her own.

Thanks for explaining your position, I don't really understand it, and that's probably my faut, but I respect it nethertheless.

 

[chaseter]

No, it didn't.

Theoritically the Vector for Peter's transformation was only available outside his immediate surroundings, if he hadn't been at Oscorp that day, no Spider-Man.

That's the crux of it, that his transformation still relied on a random event. The only difference is they've given a pseudo-scientific explanation for it this time around.

Here is how Peter gets powers in the comics:

Walks in off the street to an experiment to take pictures and gets bit radioactive spider.

Here is how Peter gets his powers in SM1:

Goes on school field trip with fellow classmates to take pictures and gets bit by genetically enhanced spider.

The take away from those two, and what Stan Lee has iterated himself, is that anyone could have become Spider-Man. Peter Parker is an average Joe that got lucky.

Here is how Peter gets powers in ASM:

He goes to Oscorp to investigate his father's murder because his father worked there. He sees a security door with symbols that were the same on his dead father's badge that he discovered and goes inside and gets bit by a genetically altered spider infused with his father's DNA so that only Richard or his lineage could gain powers from the spider venom.

So yeah, way to go Sony and Webb. You nailed the origin. Peter is only at Oscorp in the first place because of his father. He only goes into the room where he gets bit by a spider because of his father's badge. He only gets powers from the spider's venom because of his father's DNA. It's pre-destiny crap. They ruined Spider-Man's origin. Only Peter Parker could ever become Spider-Man in ASM…a bastardization of the comics.

 

[LizardMan07]

"Fathers badge"

What? He never had his fathers badge at Oscorp. Elaborate?

 

[W/ Great Power]

Y'all mother*****as need Jesus.

I have tears of laughter in my eyes right now

 

[Spider-knight]

Actually Chester that was the fault of Sony not webb

 

[DyeLorean]

That's just two deaths. We can get into how this series made Peter predestined to be Spider-Man through Richard's DNA experiments...a huge bastardization of the mythos. This series is flawed from top to bottom.

Yeah, this issue hasn't been discussed enough. That is, for me, the nail in the coffin for this series.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Actually Chester that was the fault of Sony not webb

Chester lol. How is that Sony's fault? Why are you always defending Webb, he deserves criticism too.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

"Fathers badge"

What? He never had his fathers badge at Oscorp. Elaborate?

Spoiler

 

[LizardMan07]

Spoiler

Spoiler

"Fathers badge"

What? He never had his fathers badge at Oscorp. Elaborate?

"At Oscorp"

That's his room

 

[LizardMan07]

Chester lol. How is that Sony's fault? Why are you always defending Webb, he deserves criticism too.

Webb deserves no criticism it was the mean people at sony that did it!!

 

[chaseter]

Spoiler

"At Oscorp"

That's his room

Yessssssssss??? No one said he had his father's badge at Oscorp with him when he went.

 

[LizardMan07]

Yep, misread ya, awkward that.

 

[Oscorp]

The Criminal still chose to kill and Gwen still chose to go to the powerpoint. Both these decisions were facilitated by Peter, nobody else. If Peter stops the robber, he doesn't kill Ben, if Peter didn't stop Gwen going to England, she wouldn't have followed him around into the Powerplant.

They're mutually the same. That's my point, both don't have the oppurtunity to do what they did because of Peter.

They're either both not at fault, or they both are. Simple as that. The reasons may be different, but the basic premise of both events aren't.

Thanks for explaining your position, I don't really understand it, and that's probably my faut, but I respect it nethertheless.

Don't belittle yourself.

 

[LizardMan07]

Haha, thanks mate, much appreciated, self deprecation is a crime people too often commit to themselves.

I just meant that Joker and I's positions are different due to outside influences, so it's hard to understand fully each others views!!

Which is fine, nothing wrong with that. You're correct, shouldn't be nasty to ourselves

 

[SpideyK]

Chester lol.

I laughed way too loud at that.

 

[chaseter]

It is extremely difficult to type out usernames when they are spelled out directly in front of your face. #comprehension