Are you saying you wish to drop this, because the remainder of your post doesn't suggest you are.
Ahh, no, you misunderstand me. I was only referring to dropping the specific part where I keep saying "Correct" and you keep saying "Incorrect." I was saying we should just concede that each one of us is going to keep saying that over and over and we should drop that particular part cause it would get kinda tedious just repeating the same words over and over.
I am willing to continue this.
Yes, me also. I'm enjoying the conversation very much. It's nice to have a level-headed chat with someone. I hate it when people get emotional and start name-calling or just being childish.
No, I said his powers came back when he needed them to. He did not need his powers to save the child, as the movie showed. He could not possibly have taken on Doc Ock and saved Aunt May or MJ without his powers. That is a complete impossibility.
But the person that died in the fire
did need Peter to have his powers. That is what I was getting at...his powers come back when
he needs them i.e. MJ in danger, but not when other people
need him.
Who was in danger when his powers briefly fluctuated apart from himself? Nobody. Ock was attacking him by hurling bags of coins at him. His powers never wavered when he needed them to save someone else. You are pinning all your argument on one very brief blip in an entire fight scene that started in a bank, and continued on a side of a building without any glitch in his powers apart from that one very brief time when nobody except himself was in any direct danger.
People in the bank or those on street were potentially in danger. It's quite possible people could have been injured or worse from Ock thrashing around. Go back to your previous post where you said "Ock was attacking the bank and
endangering lives."
If there is any baloney going on here I'm afraid it's on your behalf. A man was being mugged in an alley way. He was being beaten up. Peter chose not to act. So you have no basis to assume his powers would or would not have returned in that scenario if he attempted to act to save that man because Peter did not attempt to.
According to your previous argument, his powers would return when someone was in danger. A man being beaten up by two other men classifies as someone in danger, imo. Peter's failure to act is an entirely different story. I'll cover that one in a bit again though.
Second, it's an accurate assumption to say neither of them had a gun or a knife. What logical reason would two muggers have to beat someone up in order to get them to give up their money and valuables when they can force them to hand it over with a lethal weapon like a gun or a knife? It defeats the whole point of having them in the first place. That's why muggers wield them. To force someone by threat of using them to give them their valuables.
Or maybe since there were two of them and the person being mugged was a smaller guy in stature, they'd rather just beat the crap outta him instead of pulling a weapon on him. I'm sure Peter could think of a few times where he was being bullied because of his stature or whatever. The point about them possibly being armed in some fashion is a smart assumption. In my experience and education I will tell you that you should always assume someone is carrying. It's a standard in the line of safety. You'd be unwise to assume differently.
Third, and this is a jaded point you keep continually ignoring either wilfully or ignorantly, Peter choosing to not act against this was selfish, and that was the whole point. It was meant to be. It was not supposed to paint Peter in a good light. It's showing how he's being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man. It was the lesson he had learn in the movie.
Let me make this clear since it's coming across "jaded." I understand the point the movie is attempting to make with Peter and feeling guilty about his lack of responsibility. It's attempting to paint a picture of Peter acting in a selfish manner. I totally get that. I...just...don't think it was executed well. At all. In fact, for me, it had the reverse effect. His error was one of complete gross negligence and it wasn't just him being irresponsible or selfish, he was ignoring the now totally cemented mantra of GPcGR. This is essentially the exact same scenario in which Ben died. A man wanted to take something from Ben and he said No. Ben was killed. Only difference here is that Peter is witnessing the event as it is happening and he could actually step in and make a difference. That's the whole basis for why he became Spider-Man in the first place--to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen to anyone else. And he's standing right in front of it! But he does nothing. Erroneous. I get what they were going for with Peter but imo this was a truly terrible way to show it.
In what way? What better way is there to show Peter is being irresponsible than seeing him turn his back on a crime and looking upset and conflicted about it?
I'm not sure, man. I'm no writer. I am only able to judge what I see in the final product.
You are repeating the same ignorance that you did above. The movie was not trying to excuse Peter's behaviour in that scene, nor condoning it. In case you missed the dream scene he has with Uncle Ben where he rejects taking Uncle Ben's hand, you would understand he was turning his back on that. That was wrong. That's why the city was suffering from crime. That's why people wanted Spider-Man back. The city was suffering without him, just like when Garfield's Peter quit to wallow in his false guilt. Only in this case Spider-Man 2 gave Peter a justification because his powers were failing, and it was never condoning that was he was doing was right.
If you remember during the dream sequence with Uncle Ben, Peter makes no mention of all the things that are ailing him and the supposed reasons for him quitting being Spider-Man. The first thing he says it that he is in love with MJ. That's his reason for wanting a normal life.
I understand the movie was not condoning his actions. It's just the actions themselves that I take an issue with and the fact that his powers only seem to come back when MJ is in danger. When they should have returned when others were in danger or when he was consciously willing them back. But they didn't. If they depicted Peter's guilt in another manner, I probably wouldn't have such a problem with it.
No it is not. I feel as though you are failing to grasp that nobody, especially Spider-Man 2 itself was saying or trying to convey that Peter turning his back there was right. It wasn't. It was wrong and irresponsible. But he still feels conflict and guilt for it. But that is not saying he did the right thing. Just conveying he is conflicted and guilty about it.
I think we're repeating ourselves too much here but alas, I understand the movie's intentions. It's the scenes they utilized to make that point are so badly written.
Name one moment during the entire fight sequence where he tried to get Ock to spill about where MJ was. He asked him once before the fight even begun, and Ock just sarcastically told him MJ will be just fine, and then challenged Spider-Man to fight him.
Peter asking Ock once was all that was needed. We didn't need to hear him ask over and over again. We know the basis for why they are fighting. The audience understands at this point that Spidey needs to subdue Ock in order to get the info he needs. Ock has no intention of giving it up willfully. I guess we could also say this is yet another example of how Tobey's Spider-Man is labeled a mute.
Obviously he didn't show up because Ock was threatening people on the train. That did not happen until the end of their fight. But he did not abandon the train in pursuit of Ock when Ock jumped off the train after he ripped out the brakes did he? No he stayed and pushed himself to his physical limits to save those people.
Yup. And I loved that moment.
He saved those people like he saved the others that Ock threw from the train moments beforehand. It's like a game of chess and Ock has Peter's king on the run. Ock gained the upperhand cause he found Peter's weakness. Peter did the right thing here, thankfully but his powers being intact had resurfaced because of MJ, not because of the people in danger on the train.
It would have been better realized had it gone like this. The fight is proceeding as normal and at some point, suddenly, Peter's powers begin to fade for a moment. Maybe he fires some webbing but it doesn't go off or maybe he starts to get that vertigo feeling again. Then, Ock dismantles the train's controls and jumps off. At that moment, Peter is like NO and then jumps to the front of the train his powers now stronger than ever. Because he sees the people in danger. IMO, that would have worked out much better and I think the audience would have a greater appreciation for Peter in that instance.
You have several instances in the movie where he puts himself out there to save people after his powers begin fail. The first is at Octavius' demonstration, and his powers do not fail there. The second is at the bank, and there is only one brief instance where they glitch in that whole entire scene. They work for him for every vital moment he needs them. The third is at the burning building, where he did not need his powers to save the child. The fourth is when MJ is abducted by Ock, and like in the bank he needed his powers to save her and take on Ock.
So the point is when he really needed his powers they were there for him every time. Including in non MJ related incidents.
I feel like we're going in circles. Someone died in the burning building yet his powers did not come back for them. A guy was getting mugged and that didn't bring back his powers, someone needed him then too. The only time his powers came back when someone needed him was when MJ was in danger. I'd argue Aunt May too but his powers at the bank faltered long before her involvement. It was just a glitch, but it's still there.
I agree. Her name was Ursula. A sweet girl. She is one of the few people in the movie to show Peter any kindness.
Ahh, thank you. Ursula. Yeah, it's one of my favorite scenes in the movie.
I thought that the point was well portrayed. He doesn't act and someone suffers. He does act and someone still suffers. It's like a no win situation that makes his conflict so compelling.
I disagree. The point was being made but it was poorly executed.
Yes that's right. He could not have saved her from Ock without them. Just like he couldn't have saved Aunt May, or the people on the train without them.
But the people on the train didn't come until much later. The reason his powers were there and stayed there is because MJ was in danger. Even when those people on the train were in danger, MJ's still in danger. That's his whole reasons for getting his powers back. Now, if something happened like I stated above, I think it would have worked out better to showcase how his powers may go but they'll come back when people need him.
Yes, because he could not possibly have saved her without them. So naturally they would come back.
It's all about a girl.
His powers came back by the fact that he survived a fifty foot fall, with no serious injury. The impact of landing on that clothes line and smashing into the side of the building, compounded by then falling onto the car and then onto the pavement would have left him a blood stain on the street, or at the least with several shattered bones.
If his powers came back, again, like I said, he would have made that jump. He could have used his webs. It was luck that saved him. The clothesline slowed his fall and when he did fall he was still injured enough that he could barely walk upright. If he'd landed on his head, it would have been a different story. It would have been Peter Parker No More. lol. People have fallen from heigths like this and walked away without any broken bones. It is a possibility. But his powers did not come back in that instance. They never showed it happening.
His powers saved his life and let him walk away with no serious injuries other than an ache in his back, a comical nod to the back injury Tobey sustained after making Seabiscuit.
See above. And yes, I do recall the comical nod to his Seabiscuit back injury. I still laughed at that scene with the inside joke they displayed. It was pretty funny.
It has everything to do with him rejecting her. If he was not Spider-Man again then why wouldn't he be with her? Because his only reason for not being with her was because his life as Spider-Man was too dangerous for her. That's why he had tried to be with her romantically after he gave it up.
Ok, but he apparently doesn't get his powers back until she is kidnapped. He consciously decides to take up the mantle again to be Spider-Man and his powers don't return. Why not?
It means his life as Spider-Man is not centred around MJ, despite you false assertions that they are.
C'mon man, seriously? All three of the Raimi movies are totally centered around Peter and his desire for MJ. "It's all about a girl." It's the biggest reason for him losing his powers. That's what he tells Uncle Ben. You can't possibly be ignoring this fact...the entire Raimi trilogy has everything to do with how much Peter wants to be with MJ. The final scene of SM3 proves that--their relationship is headed towards reconciliation.
Which is the bad flawed writing.
Disagree. I mean, sure, all the Spider-Man movies have some flawed writing to certain degrees. ASM2 included. There's plenty to find at fault here in ASM2 with the writing but not this part. It was done well imo. I guess different strokes and all that.
Which is as foolish as blaming yourself for taking someone to the theatre where they were shot in a hold up. You cannot anticipate these things. Going to the theatre is as normal as asking someone to stay in town and be with you because you love them. Peter could not have anticipated what happened because of that. He is not to blame. Only Gwen is for going there in spite of Peter trying to stop her. She knew how dangerous it was, but she ignored it and put herself in the firing line. She paid for that foolish choice with her life.
My loved one has just died. You don't think it's acceptable to have these types of thoughts or feelings?? The five stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. There's no timetable to any of them nor is there any specific order with the exception of Acceptance. Though you can repeat the stages at any time. I was just playing along with your made-up scenario.
In Peter's scenario, it isn't a random act here. He's a crime fighter. He already has his own worries about Gwen getting hurt and of course the words/warning from Capt Stacy. And rightly so, cause him being Spider-Man already puts his loved ones in danger. There's reason to worry. But he decides to ignore all of that and say I love you and stops her from going to England, well, at least temporarily anyway. I'm sure they were probably gonna catch a later flight or something. But now she's in NY with him when the danger happens.
That is all foolishness. You can't blame yourself with a series of what if scenarios. There is no blame to be made for not being psychic and knowing the theatre would be held up any more than you can blame yourself for not predicting a deadly threat would emerge in the city and Gwen would place herself right in the middle of it.
Foolish? Yeah, maybe. A part of the grieving process? Absolutely.
The difference here again is I am not a crime fighter. I am not a superhero who regularly is out stopping bad guys. So yeah and act at the theater would not necessarily put the blame on me, unless of course I was the one who persisted on going there in the first place. I would have feelings of guilt about that for sure. I understand that I couldn't have predicted it but that wouldn't stop me from having those thoughts and feelings. It's a process.
No he did not. Stopping her from going to England did not directly place her in harm's way. That is foolishness and there is no logic to that.
Agree to disagree.
Breaking Captain Stacy's promise to stay away from Gwen is is something he's been doing since the end of the first movie.
Yeah and look how that turned out.
Of course he's allowed to grieve. He grieved for her when she died in the comics, too. But he didn't do it by throwing in the towel. Real heroes don't do that.
They grieve privately, they don't take months and months off and let the city go to hell in the mean time.
I'm not in agreement. I think it's understandable that he took time off from his role as Spider-Man. He's grieveing, and, that makes sense to me. I understand why you say it doesn't to you--I get it. IMO this part of the movie was done well. He comes back for the right reasons and he comes to an even greater understanding of how much the city needs him. Even in the face of such a tremendous loss, he's got to keep on going.