The Gwen Stacy thread

[Project862006]

I have got a question for all you do you guys really want this storyline to happen in the new Spiderman Reboot?

I am sorry but at this point the appeal has left the building in my opinion with THe Dark Knight already doing it and doing it recently.

If they did the Death Of Gwen Stacy it would be seen as a TDK rip off and the controversy and balls to do it would be gone as well. Since Nolan already had his Hero not be able to save the woman he loved and the main villain causing the female lead's death.

does the appeal still stand to this with Nolan killing Rachael not even 2 years ago
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/77/108454-191425-the-death-of-gwen-st_large.jpgthoughts??

[Rodrigo90]

Too soon for that.

[Goran]

Well it seems kinda ripped off...

the general audience doesn't know aboit Gwens death in the comics...

[Parker Wayne]

Like the Spectacular Spiderman animted series, I have been against having Gwen Stacy die, and I am 100% against having her die the same why in the comics. It just feels forced and predictable. Plus, a bridge battle between Spiderman and GG was already used in the first Spiderman. Everything that happens in the comics doesn't and shouldn't have to happen in films.

[Nathan]

Just because Batman lost his love in the Movies, Sony shouldn't be scared to adapt the Gwen storyline. Especially since the scenario is vastly different. Spider-Man is there when Gwen gets dropped, not several blocks away.

He has the chance to save her, but she dies anyway. But it was never really clear if she was already dead when Goblin dropped her, or if she was unconscious and died from getting her neck broken when Spider-Man caught her with the web. Yet if he wouldn't have done anything, it would have been a guaranteed death anyway.

He has to live with the fact that he was there, but still couldn't save the love of his life.

[Rodrigo90]

Thats always been one of strongest weaknesses...Guilt.

[Project862006]

but Nathan you could say peter was right there when ben died had he stopped the robber then sandman would of ran off most likely and his only father figure would still be alive

[Crook]

...

[Crook]

Have you guys read the story or are you taking a simple premise of killing the romantic interest as some sort of scapegoat for once again hanging onto TDKs nutsack?

Honestly the two scenarios are completely different and so are the circumstances stemmed from that death. C'mon. This is a great story, and would be tons better than TDK if adapted well. First we'd actually care for Gwen, second the sequence would be a lot more grand and dramatic. You're going to run from that because of one slight similarity? Please.

[Nathan]

He lost Uncle Ben because he acted petty and let the robber go, he wasn't aware of the consequences. But here he has the chance to act. He does, he catches her, but she dies anyway.

[Kanon]

Again fighting the Goblin in a brigge and he lets Spidey's girl fall?

And yes, people are going to compare with TDK... many with the death of Rachel, but many more with the scene where the joker throws her laughing trough the window, so Batman has to catch her... I know it's dumb, it has been done, but still...

[Rodrigo90]

Cant we see Peter and Gwen develop together first? Maybe having them actually going for walks and holding hands? Losing their virginity together? Just a nice teen romance and she finds out he is Spider-Man, BEFORE SHE IS THROWN OFF A BRIDGE BY A MADMAN?!!?

[FaT_tONle]

They gotto mix it up. Maybe kill her off as a close friend of Parker but not a love interest, sort of accidental. Not a villain directly responsible for it (or someone different than Norman). Maybe Spiderman is responsible for it. It shouldn't be a direct rehash from the comics.

[Nathan]

I'd want her being dropped in the 3rd Movie. Ending the first new Trilogy on a very saddened and dramatic tone.

[Rodrigo90]

Its more tragic if she is his GF.

[Reikowolf]

The Night Gwen Stacey died is not just a very popular arc in the Spider-Man mythos but it is also marked as a huge change in the character, as well as comics in general.

It was the first time such a key character to the superhero had ever been killed and the hero could not prevent it.

This story, if done with a director who understands its significance and importance, would make for a great cinematic moment.

Essentially, it's the point where Peter Parker stopped being young.

[marvelrobbins]

Personally I always wished the green goblin would have killed mary Jane
Instead of Gwen.But they should devolp Gwen and Peter's relationship over 2 or 3 films.Rachel In The dark Knight was never really with Bruce Wayne and
was going to marry Harvey dent.Noone really care If she died.With gwen
you need time to make the audence like her.and like her with Peter,and It
be a tragedy when she Is killed.

Ideal i would have In second film her and Peter getting very close.Suggest
they lose their virginity with each other(These are Pg-13 films) and her
death cause Peter to really go after the green goblin(admit It the green Goblin
In Rami's version beat up SPider-man too much.Spider-Man here should be
the one overpowering him and he just barely keeps himself from going too far
and killing him) and In a third film losing Gwen at end of film 2 makes it even worse when Peter bonds with the symbate.Of course If they wanted to wait and have gwen die In film 3 then that would be fine too.

[TheSlag]

In a word... Yes. In two words.. HELL YES!

Is it different from TDK which basically took it from Spider-Man? Yes in some ways. In some ways the two stories will have basic parts that seem the same.

1) It's Spider-Man's brith right
2) It establishes the Goblin's Legacy
3) Norman Osborn knew Gwen, and knows who Spider-Man is
4) Norman is basically a father figure to Peter, as Harry is like a brother to Peter
5) It takes the story full circle. Peter did not use his powers (responsibly) and his Uncle Ben paid the price. Now, Peter, despite ALL his powers, still cannot save the one he loves. It reenforces, that the ones he Loves will always pay the price. In this case, the ultimate price.

Add to that the Capt Stacy Death Arc.. where Gwen dies thinking Spider-Man caused the death of her father... wow. I could also see quite a few variations thay could take from the comic verse (while still staying true to the overalll storyline) that would/could be very powerful, and add to the overall story.

For example.. GG taunting Gwen before he throws her to her death (if that is how they choose to do it) that Spider-Man, the person she thinks killed her father.. is indeed.... "Peter"

That, could be EXTREMELY intense (I would use the word "gritty" but why set off the dogs again :cwink:) and could be VERY moviing.

And besides, they could/should not do this storyline in one movie. They should do it in 3 movies (into the reboot). They have to establish Gwen first to make this meaningful, as well as introduce the Goblin/Osborn. We're talking at best, approx 8 years from now.

[JustABill]

Doing this in the last part of a trilogy with Green Goblin emerging from a Norman Osbon we've grown to know as Harry's father and a friend of the girl about to die would make this absolutely heart breaking and shattering.

More so than the girl that was in 2 Batman movies for a couple scenes.

[Artistsean]

I could see the studio seeing the negative fan reaction to MJ and making Peter end up with Gwen this time. Making it all about Peter and Gwen, even if they don't end up together I don't see them having her die like they did in the comics (to dark for younger viewers I would imagine).

[Danalys]

iron man basical managed to do the overal story of batman begins not too long after. but yeah i'm still pissed TDK managed to beat spidy to the punch cinematically of that which was his, and should have been done years earlier.

[Reikowolf]

In a word... Yes. In two words.. HELL YES!

Is it different from TDK which basically took it from Spider-Man? Yes in some ways. In some ways the two stories will have basic parts that seem the same.

1) It's Spider-Man's brith right
2) It establishes the Goblin's Legacy
3) Norman Osborn knew Gwen, and knows who Spider-Man is
4) Norman is basically a father figure to Peter, as Harry is like a brother to Peter
5) It takes the story full circle. Peter did not use his powers (responsibly) and his Uncle Ben paid the price. Now, Peter, despite ALL his powers, still cannot save the one he loves. It reenforces, that the ones he Loves will always pay the price. In this case, the ultimate price.

Add to that the Capt Stacy Death Arc.. where Gwen dies thinking Spider-Man caused the death of her father... wow. I could also see quite a few variations thay could take from the comic verse (while still staying true to the overalll storyline) that would/could be very powerful, and add to the overall story.

For example.. GG taunting Gwen before he throws her to her death (if that is how they choose to do it) that Spider-Man, the person she thinks killed her father.. is indeed.... "Peter"

That, could be EXTREMELY intense (I would use the word "gritty" but why set off the dogs again :cwink:) and could be VERY moviing.

And besides, they could/should not do this storyline in one movie. They should do it in 3 movies (into the reboot). They have to establish Gwen first to make this meaningful, as well as introduce the Goblin/Osborn. We're talking at best, approx 8 years from now.

right on. I'm all for that

[The Joker]

If MJ can be kidnapped by the villains three separate times in the same franchise, then Gwen can be killed off in the new franchise.

These TDK comparisons are really :doh:

[Doctor Jones]

Nobody is going to give a damn if they do it differently. Yes, because both situations are the same. The only thing that is the same is that both die. But in different ways. It could be much better if done right.

[TheSlag]

If MJ can be kidnapped by the villains three separate times in the same franchise, then Gwen can be killed off in the new franchise.

These TDK comparisons are really :doh:

Agreed. The comparisons over a couple of words, or a casual statement is getting silly.

[Project862006]

do we really want goblin all over again as the first villain ?

and joker if you dont see tdk comparison something is wrong with you also if peter can save mj 3 different times in Raimi's vision .But Gwen gets killed in the reboot that would just seem kinda off in my opinion.

if the GA thought Nite owl looked like batman wtf do you think this comparison is gonna do

i am not saying i am against this i am just worried

[The Joker]

and joker if you dont see tdk comparison something is wrong with you

Something wrong with me? Something wrong with YOU, pal. I see the TDK comparison, it's just weak, shallow, and holds no water.

- Rachel and Bruce were not an item. She was with Harvey Dent, and she was in love with him. She was going to marry Harvey and everything.
- Joker did not kill Rachel in order to punish Batman. He did it to corrupt Harvey.

Vastly different scenario to Gwen's death.

[Reikowolf]

do we really want goblin all over again as the first villain ?

and joker if you dont see tdk comparison something is wrong with you also if peter can save mj 3 different times in Raimi's vision .But Gwen gets killed in the reboot that would just seem kinda off in my opinion.

if the GA thought Nite owl looked like batman wtf do you think this comparison is gonna do

i am not saying i am against this i am just worried

Women in distress and dying is a motif in most comic books, and comic book movies for that matter. Spider-Man was the first to do the death.

TDK
Xmen3
Superman (although he brought her back because he is superman)
I'm sure the list goes on


Also, Night Owl was designed to be a Batman archetype. You can even say the second Night Owl was Robin trying to be Batman.

[JustABill]

Something wrong with me? Something wrong with YOU, pal. I see the TDK comparison, it's just weak, shallow, and holds no water.

- Rachel and Bruce were not an item. She was with Harvey Dent, and she was in love with him. She was going to marry Harvey and everything.
- Joker did not kill Rachel in order to punish Batman. He did it to corrupt Harvey.

Vastly different scenario to Gwen's death.
Exactly! Gwen's still in love with Peter at the time of her death. Gwen's still very close to Peter's heart. Goblin takes Gwen to punish Peter.

Very..very different and IMO more heartbreaking scenario.

[The Lizard]

Since this is a Gwen-centric thread, I'll just carry over this suggestion from the main casting thread..

http://i50.tinypic.com/eqr1x3.jpg

Dakota Fanning maybe as Gwen? She's the right age, and has the talent, no doubt.

[TheSlag]

Something wrong with me? Something wrong with YOU, pal. I see the TDK comparison, it's just weak, shallow, and holds no water.

- Rachel and Bruce were not an item. She was with Harvey Dent, and she was in love with him. She was going to marry Harvey and everything.
- Joker did not kill Rachel in order to punish Batman. He did it to corrupt Harvey.

Vastly different scenario to Gwen's death.

As usual Doc.. very well said. :up:

[TheSlag]

Since this is a Gwen-centric thread, I'll just carry over this suggestion from the main casting thread..

http://i50.tinypic.com/eqr1x3.jpg

Dakota Fanning maybe as Gwen? She's the right age, and has the talent, no doubt.


Hmmm.. interesting choice.

[Rodrigo90]

You cant compare the situation with Spider-Man,Gwen and Goblin with TDK situation.

Different situations. Different reasons. Its stupid.

[Danalys]

Something wrong with me? Something wrong with YOU, pal. I see the TDK comparison, it's just weak, shallow, and holds no water.

- Rachel and Bruce were not an item. She was with Harvey Dent, and she was in love with him. She was going to marry Harvey and everything.
- Joker did not kill Rachel in order to punish Batman. He did it to corrupt Harvey.

Vastly different scenario to Gwen's death.

he knew from bruce's previous rescue of her that she was important to bruce

he sent bruce to the wrong address deliberately. and not just so harvey would lose out as per the above.

[Dragon]

In a word, No. Or at least not as written. The story is too straight-forward and the general audience isn't going in simply to watch a character (particularly if the character is established and liked) die. They may watch a weekly TV show like that, but not a feature film. The thing that made ASM #121 so jarring and powerful is that no one expected Gwen to die. Marvel even made sure thay didn't reveal the story's title until the end.

[The Joker]

he knew from bruce's previous rescue of her that she was important to bruce

he sent bruce to the wrong address deliberately. and not just so harvey would lose out as per the above.

And again....

- He didn't do it to punish Batman. He did it to corrupt Harvey. He deliberately gave Batman the wrong address because he wanted Harvey to be rescued, and live with the grief of Rachel's death. He had no intention of trying to corrupt Batman. Batman was "too much fun".

Simple as that.

[Danalys]

too much fun to upset.

when you're the joker you take hitting two birds with one stone when you can.

[Project862006]

:doh:not saying they are exact replicas of each other jeez

Bruce and Rachael were not together but he still had very strong feelings for her and wanted to get back with her because he loved her.

I am just saying having a superhero's love may they be together or not to get killed off by the Main Villain may be too soon since TDK was only 2008.

the scenario is not the same but the motive and end result is

[JustABill]

In a word, No. Or at least not as written. The story is too straight-forward and the general audience isn't going in simply to watch a character (particularly if the character is established and liked) die. They may watch a weekly TV show like that, but not a feature film. The thing that made ASM #121 so jarring and powerful is that no one expected Gwen to die. Marvel even made sure thay didn't reveal the story's title until the end.
Most people in the audience will be experiencing just what people at the time of Gwen's death would. They won't know it's coming as well. The general audience probably thinks of Gwen Stacy as nothing more as that blonde girl in 3 or 4 scenes of Spider-Man 3.

[The Joker]

too much fun to upset.

when you're the joker you take hitting two birds with one stone when you can.

Ok, if you believe Joker set that up just so Batman could punch him a few times and shout at him, then that's your mis-interpretation.

It was all about Harvey. She was "Harvey's squeeze", and only by killing her could he really get under his skin, because Harvey was his "Ace in the hole".

[marvelrobbins]

If they would have gwen end up peter then that would make me happy.The
character of Gwen was much suited to be with Peter.mary Jane intill they reconned her background In the 80's was basiclly a party girl.Plus Imagne
a film where they tweaked it to have the goblin be responable for her
father's death.Making the goblin grabing her even more dramatic.And even
If they would tweak things where Spider-Man could save her.Having the
Goblin kill her father and nearly killing her would lead to dramatic showdown.

As for the suggestion of Dakota Fanning as Gwen.Nice suggestion I never thought of.She Is fast becoming a nice looking babe and she can defently act.

[Micah12345]

As long as the actress playing gwen is good, it should have a much more dramatic effect than rachel's death in TDK did.

Not everyone will admit it, but she was so ugly you were almost glad to see her go.

[Project862006]

As long as the actress playing gwen is good, it should have a much more dramatic effect than rachel's death in TDK did.

Not everyone will admit it, but she was so ugly you were almost glad to see her go.
:awesome:so true

[Nathan]

:doh:not saying they are exact replicas of each other jeez

Bruce and Rachael were not together but he still had very strong feelings for her and wanted to get back with her because he loved her.

I am just saying having a superhero's love may they be together or not to get killed off by the Main Villain may be too soon since TDK was only 2008.

the scenario is not the same but the motive and end result is

And we already have 2010. The first Movie will be out in in 2012. And who says Gwen has to die there? Maybe it'll be in the second or third. That'll be another 2-6 years. So, yadda, yadda, yadda.

[spider_man_2]

In a word... Yes. In two words.. HELL YES!

Is it different from TDK which basically took it from Spider-Man? Yes in some ways. In some ways the two stories will have basic parts that seem the same.

1) It's Spider-Man's brith right
2) It establishes the Goblin's Legacy
3) Norman Osborn knew Gwen, and knows who Spider-Man is
4) Norman is basically a father figure to Peter, as Harry is like a brother to Peter
5) It takes the story full circle. Peter did not use his powers (responsibly) and his Uncle Ben paid the price. Now, Peter, despite ALL his powers, still cannot save the one he loves. It reenforces, that the ones he Loves will always pay the price. In this case, the ultimate price.

Add to that the Capt Stacy Death Arc.. where Gwen dies thinking Spider-Man caused the death of her father... wow. I could also see quite a few variations thay could take from the comic verse (while still staying true to the overalll storyline) that would/could be very powerful, and add to the overall story.

For example.. GG taunting Gwen before he throws her to her death (if that is how they choose to do it) that Spider-Man, the person she thinks killed her father.. is indeed.... "Peter"

That, could be EXTREMELY intense (I would use the word "gritty" but why set off the dogs again :cwink:) and could be VERY moviing.

And besides, they could/should not do this storyline in one movie. They should do it in 3 movies (into the reboot). They have to establish Gwen first to make this meaningful, as well as introduce the Goblin/Osborn. We're talking at best, approx 8 years from now.

Yes, please!

[Danalys]

Ok, if you believe Joker set that up just so Batman could punch him a few times and shout at him, then that's your mis-interpretation.

It was all about Harvey. She was "Harvey's squeeze", and only by killing her could he really get under his skin, because Harvey was his "Ace in the hole".

well i subscribe to more of a theory that the joker just sets up situations that may end up (have greater odds of working) in his favour rather than trying to fulfill a specific series of events just because it would stretch incredubility for him to have planned the whole thing. he's all about chaos after all.

[marvelrobbins]

Maggie Gyllenhaal can not be called a hot comic book babe.Katie Holmes may
not be very smart and may be weak In the acting arena but at least you could
call her a babe.

Your stupid If you try to do the entire Gwen Stacy story In one film.Do it In
2 or 3 films and you will have great material on screen.
And please cast a real blonde.Enough with casting actresses and making them
wear wigs.

[Nathan]

well i subscribe to more of a theory that the joker just sets up situations that may end up (have greater odds of working) in his favour rather than trying to fulfill a specific series of events just because it would stretch incredubility for him to have planned the whole thing. he's all about chaos after all.

That's the thing. The dude preaches chaos, and how he doesn't follow plans at all, but at the end of it all, that dude was nothing but a Master planner.

[Danalys]

That's the thing. The dude preaches chaos, and how he doesn't follow plans at all, but at the end of it all, that dude was nothing but a Master planner.

yeah but he has chaotic contingecies, or contingecies for chaos.

[Project862006]

1 thing i do know they better not make goblin the villain in the reboot

it is a reboot so make it a reboot

[Nathan]

1 thing i do know they better not make goblin the villain in the reboot

it is a reboot so make it a reboot

He'll eventually appear, but he shouldn't kick off the reboot.

[Project862006]

i wonder who can replace William Dafoe it will be some big shoes to fill actually majority of the new cast has some big shoes to fill other than MJ and Venom.

[Nathan]

Tobey's shoes aren't exactly big either. He was most of the time void of personality and has been crying countless times in the Movies.

[Crook]

Asides from Simmons, I really don't think any of the cast members left very big shoes to fill at all. They all did their jobs well enough, but I don't think it was to the point where they literally defined it in a manner where it'd be intimidating to take on.

[JustABill]

The only big shoes they have to feel are Rosemary Harris and JK Simmons in my opinion. Everyone else can be replaced with someone of equal or better quality.

[Crook]

Helen Mirren would wipe the floor with Rosemary "can't you hear that I'll die any moment?" Harris. :o

[JustABill]

Helen ''Won't do it" Mirren? Yeah, sure, too bad, she'll never get the chance. Seriously..it won't happen.

[Project862006]

Tobey's shoes aren't exactly big either. He was most of the time void of personality and has been crying countless times in the Movies.

i think Tobey is a great actor that is why i feel that way

[The Joker]

Helen ''Won't do it" Mirren? Yeah, sure, too bad, she'll never get the chance. Seriously..it won't happen.

That's what they said to the people who wanted a reboot for the Spider-Man franchise. Never say never :cwink:

The Batman movies attract some serious talent in Hollywood.

[Crook]

Yeah, all it really takes is a director with prestige and clout to attract the big-names.

[Nathan]

i think Tobey is a great actor that is why i feel that way

Maybe in other Movies, but as Peter Parker/Spider-Man he was just way too awkward.

[Project862006]

Helen Mirren is too stunning for Aunt May if that makes sense because in my opinion not that May is ugly but Helen is a beautiful older woman

just look at her compared to May

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_2/HelenMirren.jpg
http://www.the-iss.com/2008/07/15/img/auntmay.jpg

[Spider-Fan83]

I think, maybe, alil to early for the Gwen story...

I was actually wonder if it was still to early to try to reintroduce in at all, and was thinking, (since, they taking back to high school) maybe, start with someone like, Liz (or another potential love interest that hasn't been used, yet)

Though, I’d say if they wanted to do the Gwen story, definitely stretch it out on the course of a couple of movies (reintroducing her, and killing her all in one movie, would feel way too rushed)

[Nathan]

http://www.the-iss.com/2008/07/15/img/auntmay.jpg

Let's not stay in the past.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/8687/auntmayyyy.png (http://img82.imageshack.us/i/auntmayyyy.png/)

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/1944/auntmay.jpg (http://img82.imageshack.us/i/auntmay.jpg/)

[Crook]

Helen Mirren is too stunning for Aunt May if that makes sense because in my opinion not that May is ugly but Helen is a beautiful older woman
...and? Aunt May is basically just an old white-haired woman. A couple years give or take isn't gonna hurt anything. And Helen being an eye-pleaser is certainly not a negative. We've had the old-school grandma already. I'd rather go for a more contemporary mature female figure.

I think, maybe, alil to early for the Gwen story...

I was actually wonder if it was still to early to try to reintroduce in at all, and was thinking, (since, they taking back to high school) maybe, start with someone like, Liz (or another potential love interest that hasn't been used, yet)

Though, I’d say if they wanted to do the Gwen story, definitely stretch it out on the course of a couple of movies (reintroducing her, and killing her all in one movie, would feel way too rushed)
Gwen's been practically there from the beginning. She was with Peter during his high school years. I don't see it as being too early at all. It's the perfect time.

And Liz...meh. Building up Gwen's relationship with Peter yields much better results for the character and franchise.

[Project862006]

stay in the past please those pics are f'n horrible both look like men

[Nathan]

Of course they do.

[Rodrigo90]

No love triangle between Peter,Gwen and Liz.

Liz is Harry's GF and is friends with Peter. Peter has a crush on Liz's friend Gwen,but is basically saying "She would never go out with me". Gwen however confides in Liz that she fancies Pete and so Liz plays cupid.

Peter and Gwen should slowly develop throughout the movie,coming to a decision to lose their virginity soon. But that happens between 1 and 2. Peter so in love with Gwen decides to propose in 2,so it makes more hard for him when she eventually meets her fate at the hands of the villain.

But does it have to be Goblin that kills her?

[Dragon]

Most people in the audience will be experiencing just what people at the time of Gwen's death would. They won't know it's coming as well. The general audience probably thinks of Gwen Stacy as nothing more as that blonde girl in 3 or 4 scenes of Spider-Man 3.



If they adapted "The Death of Gwen Stacy" the audience would know about it. Just as the audience knew that Spidey 2 adapted "Spider-Man No More" and that Spidey 3 adapted the Black suit saga. These types of things tend to come out.

[JustABill]

If they adapted "The Death of Gwen Stacy" the audience would know about it. Just as the audience knew that Spidey 2 adapted "Spider-Man No More" and that Spidey 3 adapted the Black suit saga. These types of things tend to come out.
Uh no...the GA could give a rat's ass about what story arc the movie is being based around. Seriously? You really think the GA knows that stuff? They don't. :doh:

They just go to see Spider-Man in the theater and hope for a good movie. Comic fans like us? Sure, we'll know they are adapting a certain arc, but the more important GA? They won't know **** about what's coming for them.

And hell, Gwen's death is so iconic that I doubt many comic fans in the audiences would complain if EVERYTHING was lifted right from those panels in the arc, including dialogue and more, because it IS the MOMENT of Spider-Man comics.

[SuperFerret]

Honestly, I'd like to see a Peter Parker who gets to keep his Gwen Stacy.

[JustABill]

Honestly, I'd like to see a Peter Parker who gets to keep his Gwen Stacy.
We've seen that in the comics in what if stories before. It's not exactly a new concept.

[SuperFerret]

I'm talking about a non-What if? scenario, that lasts for a while. I mean, if we're going to ignore the source material in the first place, why not keep her alive?

[JustABill]

I'm talking about a non-What if? scenario, that lasts for a while. I mean, if we're going to ignore the source material in the first place, why not keep her alive?
But are we going to ignore the source material really? Why ignore the source material on this one bit? When this one bit is the best Spider-Man story arc?

And what's the difference, he would just marry Gwen and have kids with her instead of Mary Jane and having kids. It's just interchangeable. I see no point in it.

[SuperFerret]

Well, if Gwen, Harry and MJ are going to meet Peter in High School, then that's a change from the source material, and it's a change that'll very likely happen, because I doubt that Peter pining after Liz Allen and dating Betty Brant would happen in these movies.

And who says that it's the best Spider-Man story arc? It's got a huge impact, and depicts a pivotal moment, but it's actually quite random in context, which I guess helps with believability, and it's a sad moment, a very tragic storyline. Spider-Man, for all his guilt, isn't a tragic figure. I'd say that the best Spider-Man story arcs are the ones that are light-hearted and fun, fully representative of the main character. No doubt that Gwen's death was important, and one of the better ones, but the best? I don't agree with that.

And I thought people didn't like Peter Parker crying or stories "about a girl".

[Ace of Knaves]

Helen Mirren would wipe the floor with Rosemary "can't you hear that I'll die any moment?" Harris. :o

Helen Mirren would be my dream for Blind Al. Imagine that, Helen Mirren trading wise cracks and pranks with Ryan Reynolds? It's just so ridiculous it would be ****ing awesome.

[JustABill]

Well, if Gwen, Harry and MJ are going to meet Peter in High School, then that's a change from the source material, and it's a change that'll very likely happen, because I doubt that Peter pining after Liz Allen and dating Betty Brant would happen in these movies.

And who says that it's the best Spider-Man story arc? It's got a huge impact, and depicts a pivotal moment, but it's actually quite random in context, which I guess helps with believability, and it's a sad moment, a very tragic storyline. Spider-Man, for all his guilt, isn't a tragic figure. I'd say that the best Spider-Man story arcs are the ones that are light-hearted and fun, fully representative of the main character. No doubt that Gwen's death was important, and one of the better ones, but the best? I don't agree with that.

And I thought people didn't like Peter Parker crying or stories "about a girl".
Those changes you mentioned that will more than likely happen, are not without precedent they've happened in more than one adaption of Spider-Man now. One of them a Spider-Man comic.

The lighthearted stories are great, but I've always been a fan of some of the more dark or tragic Spider-Man stories like Night Gwen Stacy Died, Kraven's Last Hunt, Death of Captain Stacy, etc, etc. I just think with this reboot we have a chance to tell one of Spider-Man's greatest stories, if not that greatest.

Sure, not word for word, that might be a little boring, but we finally have a chance to see this happen. It's up to Sony though if it does.

[JustABill]

Helen Mirren would be my dream for Blind Al. Imagine that, Helen Mirren trading wise cracks and pranks with Ryan Reynolds? It's just so ridiculous it would be ****ing awesome.
And that just brings me to great sadness that they can't get Bea Arthur anymore for a cameo in Deadpool for some reason. Don't know how I went from Blind Al to Bea Arthur, but yeah. :(

[Ace of Knaves]

And that just brings me to great sadness that they can't get Bea Arthur anymore for a cameo in Deadpool for some reason. Don't know how I went from Blind Al to Bea Arthur, but yeah. :(

Poor Bea :(

Betty White's still alive and kicking though. :D

[JustABill]

Poor Bea :(

Betty White's still alive and kicking though. :D
Deadpool: BETTY! You know I always had a thing for Bea, but, talk me up, and you just might to get to see my other saber. :D

[Ace of Knaves]

:funny:

Yea she was great with Reynolds in the Proposal. I think she'd be good as Al.

But anyway, we are getting off track.

The Death of Gwen Stacey? I'd love it, personally.

Have her death maybe at the end of the second, or middle of the third in a trilogy. The rest of the time would be Spidey trying to get the Goblin.

It's an iconic Spidey story. It's still 100% bonafide Spider-Man. But it is definitely not light hearted fluff. I honestly think that when the studio says "more like TDK" they are alluding to this story or Kravens Last Hunt or something similar.

I guarantee they do NOT mean make Spidey a dark, brooding vigilante like Batman. I ****ing guarantee it.

[Reikowolf]

Wish list for avoiding an origin tale and setting the tone for the world this spider-man lives in.

fade in to a TV broadcast, a blurred figure is seen in a black and white photo swinging across a building. Followed by blurry cell phone image of red figure, the eyes almost alien like.

Female narrator voice.

"Who is this supposed Spider-Man? Over the last year this has been the question posed by many New Yorkers. Urban legend? Mutant? Alien Visitor? Inside Edition went to leading researchers to find out."

A camera is shown in a research lab. Many black dressed officials looking through paperwork. They are wearing SHIELD tags. A scientist (hopefully Edward Norton) has not slept in days, the camera is shoved in his face. His name tag reads, Banner

"What.. oh, you guys. Listen lady, my field of study is radiation. I can tell you that there's no way radiation can cause the cross of attributes between humans and animals. That's the stuff you read about in comics."

In the background another scientist calls out to Banner

"Bruce! he's woken up! He's actually alive, after all these years!"

A look of shock strikes Bruce

"Okay, Can we get this camera crew out of here. I'm sick of this Stark PR ********!"

The camera is shoved aside as a black dressed agent covers the lens with his hands.

We cut back to the female narrator in a studio.

"Former government liaison and mutant rights activist, Dr Hank McCoy had the following to say."

Hank McCoy (Kelsey Grammar) is seen at the Xavier school.

"If he is a mutant, I hope he feels he is not alone. It can be a scary place for our kind. Especially if he is in hiding and not coming out publicly... there must be a reason for it"

"How do you feel about the fact that he has been labeled as a vigilante that feeds on criminals for sustenance by the Daily Bugle"

"Please madam, this is the same paper that reported mutants as alien invaders 30 years ago"

The camera cuts to JJJ at the daily bugle.

"J Jonah Jameson, Editor and chief of the Daily Bugle feels differently."

"Listen lady, If Tony Stark can tell the world that he is Iron Man, what's this Spider-guy's problem? All I'm publishing is what eye witnesses have said about the creep."

The camera cuts to footage of a man being arrested by police after an encounter with Spider-Man

"Those eyes! he had me tied up in a web and was going to feed on my insides! thank god the police showed up when they did!"

the camera pans over to a convenience store clerk

"I wish he had! *points to camera* This punk had me at gunpoint with a shotgun!"

Back to studio. Female narrator

"Is the spider-man a new, extreme vigilante, and if so, why hasn't Tony Stark, better known as Iron Man commented on his new competition."

The Camera cuts to Tony Stark (Downey Jr) leaving a party, Pepper Pots with him.

"The who? Spider-Man? We live in a crazy world. I'm proof of that, but if some guys feel they can do a better job than me wearing a pair of purple shorts, spandex or leather, I'd like to see them try."

laughter is heard in the background.

"All I'm saying is that we're still repairing the damage in Harlem and rebuilding Alcatraz. At least the damage I do happens on my own property....or over seas."

cuts back to studio.

"Whoever he is, the big question is, why is he hiding from the limelight?"

The camera pans out revealing a young Peter Parker watching television before school. He looks down at his hand, the scar is still there from the spider-bite.

[JustABill]

As nice as that is...that's just one big pipe dream involving far too many studios characters.

[Ace of Knaves]

Pipe? Where? Who's got the pipe!?!? I WANT IT!

[Reikowolf]

yeah, I know

still... a guy can dream

[Dragon]

Uh no...the GA could give a rat's ass about what story arc the movie is being based around. Seriously? You really think the GA knows that stuff? They don't. :doh:

They just go to see Spider-Man in the theater and hope for a good movie. Comic fans like us? Sure, we'll know they are adapting a certain arc, but the more important GA? They won't know **** about what's coming for them.

And hell, Gwen's death is so iconic that I doubt many comic fans in the audiences would complain if EVERYTHING was lifted right from those panels in the arc, including dialogue and more, because it IS the MOMENT of Spider-Man comics.

The "GA" will know about the story, because concepts like Spider-Man No More were part of the promotional campaign.

And the "GA" have general knowledge about Spider-Man, which is why they're interested in seeing him in the first place. Considerng that The Death of Gwen Stacy is- as YOU mention, ICONIC, they will know about it. They maty not know exactly what happens but they'll know what it is.

[Crook]

The "GA" will know about the story, because concepts like Spider-Man No More were part of the promotional campaign.

And the "GA" have general knowledge about Spider-Man, which is why they're interested in seeing him in the first place. Considerng that The Death of Gwen Stacy is- as YOU mention, ICONIC, they will know about it. They maty not know exactly what happens but they'll know what it is.
What? I don't know a single GA member who can even identify who Gwen Stacy is, let alone what role she plays in the mythos.

[Nathan]

How many years ago what is when Gwen died? There's a whole new generation that hasn't got the slightest clue about that storyline.

[Ace of Knaves]

The Death of Gwen Stacey is iconic in comic book circles. To fans of comic books.

But I severely doubt general audience members know about it.

And besides, the first movie won't be the death of Gwen, it would just be the introduction to Gwen. (if they go that route)

[Dragon]

What? I don't know a single GA member who can even identify who Gwen Stacy is, let alone what role she plays in the mythos.

Really? How about the people who forked out nearly a billion dollars worldwide to watch Spider-Man 3?

[Ace of Knaves]

She had about 5 scenes. That was Gwen in name only.

I bet no one in the GA knows she was Pete's original love. Or that she was killed.

[Crook]

You really think they can name her from a picture? I guarantee they can't even name Betty Brant or Dr. Connors, and they were supporting characters for the entire trilogy.

Even ignoring that, what makes you think they know the 'Death of Gwen' storyline? It was over 40 years ago. It's a known event in the comic book community, but it has most definitely not injected itself to pop culture status.

[Nathan]

Really? How about the people who forked out nearly a billion dollars worldwide to watch Spider-Man 3?

And again, who says that even half of those people knew what role Gwen played in the comics? For them she was probably nothing more than another love interest.

[Dragon]

You really think they can name her from a picture? I guarantee they can't even name Betty Brant or Dr. Connors, and they were supporting characters for the entire trilogy.

Even ignoring that, what makes you think they know the 'Death of Gwen' storyline? It was over 40 years ago. It's a known event in the comic book community, but it has most definitely not injected itself to pop culture status.

I'm saying THEY WILL KNOW by the time the movie was made, since it will be promoted and publicized. Especially if Gwen is established in previous films as the love interest.

[Ace of Knaves]

Not everyone KNEW Rachel Dawes was gonna die in TDK did they?

Unless they did some research on the net.

[Dragon]

Not everyone KNEW Rachel Dawes was gonna die in TDK did they?

Unless they did some research on the net.

Actually, yeah they did. I didn't do any research about TDK and knew she died.

And Rachel Dawes is not a classic comic book character whose death is an Iconic storyline.

Furthermore, I don't think most folks liked Dawes. Even in Spidey 3 a large number of people liked Gwen better than MJ.

[Ace of Knaves]

It's an iconic storyline to US. The comic book fans. And it is like, 40 years old.

But I agree, I didn't like the Dawes character and MJ in SM3 was just, ergh I hated her. I was constantly thinking "Why the **** does Pete wanna be with her? She is a self obsessed *****!"

[NinjaCarm]

Incorporate Gwen Stacy as the main love interest. Mary Jane is behind the scenes. Kill off Gwen Stacy in the second film called "Web of Spider-Man" with the real Green Goblin.

[Crook]

I'm saying THEY WILL KNOW by the time the movie was made, since it will be promoted and publicized. Especially if Gwen is established in previous films as the love interest.
Ah, ok I get your point. But there's also a point to be made that the general audience doesn't read heavily read into every promotional aspect of a movie. They'll watch the trailers, the spots, clips, etc. The places that will feature background info on featured characters, I very much doubt the average joe will even see.

With that said, it also relies on the studio to downplay such whispers. Should they decide to save the arc for a third movie, for example, the GA would have been so used to her as the new love interest that they probably wouldn't expect her to get killed off.

Actually, yeah they did. I didn't do any research about TDK and knew she died.
No, you wanted and expected her to die. As did most fans, because we hated the character and we wanted an actual female love interest from the books.

[Dragon]

It's an iconic storyline to US. The comic book fans. And it is like, 40 years old.

And because the story is iconic, they'd be talking about it on things like Entertainment Tonight,. The cast would be talking about it with Jay Leno, etc. I'm saying the story would get out.

But I agree, I didn't like the Dawes character and MJ in SM3 was just, ergh I hated her. I was constantly thinking "Why the **** does Pete wanna be with her? She is a self obsessed *****!"

Amen.

[Project862006]

Poor Bea :(

Betty White's still alive and kicking though. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn1r1jb4--k

:awesome:

[BenReilly]

Small tidbit/story detail from CHUD, in regards to Vanderbilt's reboot script:

If the rumors I've heard about the script are true - it's heavy on a Peter/Mary Jane/Flash/Gwen Stacy love rectangle

http://chud.com/articles/articles/22151/1/WILL-THE-SPIDER-MAN-REBOOT-BE-IN-THE-MARVEL-MOVIEVERSE/Page1.html

[marvelrobbins]

Peter/Mary jane/Flash/Gwen has roots In the original comicsPeter likes
Gwen who Is one of the women Flash goes on Dates.Gwen secretly likes
Peter.After finally seeing mary jane peter goes on dates with her.Gwen Is
jealous of mary jane.Flash Is attracted to mary jane.

This Is the kind of soap opera the films need.Not Peter just mooning for Mary Jane with no eyes for any other woman till under symbate Influence he wants
to hurt mary jane.Teen romance was always a part of Spider-Man.It just
was done terrable In the Sam Rami version.

Now I never looked at a Issue of the ultimate Spider-man.Nor have I ever
seen Spectular Spider-man.My perfered animated spider-man Is the 90's
series.That show's romance sidelines were always superior to the Rami
films.I believer Spider-man from the real marvel universe from the Stan Lee
Steve Ditko days to the early 90's before they started on the stuff that lead
up to the notoras Clone Saga and It's aftermath Is what they should look at
when adapting Spider-man.Of course If the ultimate series has stuff that can help make If for today's audences while allowing it to be true to the essence
of Spider-man then go ahead.

[Nathan]

And because the story is iconic, they'd be talking about it on things like Entertainment Tonight,. The cast would be talking about it with Jay Leno, etc. I'm saying the story would get out.

So, just because it might get spoiled, it shouldn't be filmed? Hey, another spoiler, Norman Osborn turns into the Green Goblin. So, since everyone already knows that, let's just ignore that story arc. Also, everyone knows that Uncle Ben dies, so how about we let him live for a change?

[Abaddon]

I can't imagine they'd consider doing another Goblin arc so soon after the first trilogy. I think they could tackle the Death of Captain Stacy, but if Gwen is introduced I won't expect her to be falling off any bridges.

[Project862006]

http://chud.com/articles/articles/22151/1/WILL-THE-SPIDER-MAN-REBOOT-BE-IN-THE-MARVEL-MOVIEVERSE/Page1.html

:doh:Love Rectangle that is what i wanted LOL

[Artistsean]

I am reading Amazing Spider-Man by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. They just introduce Gwen Stacey.
Even though she acts like she doesn't like him, I have a good feeling about these two. And see nothing but good things in their future.:awesome:

[Dragon]

So, just because it might get spoiled, it shouldn't be filmed? Hey, another spoiler, Norman Osborn turns into the Green Goblin. So, since everyone already knows that, let's just ignore that story arc. Also, everyone knows that Uncle Ben dies, so how about we let him live for a change?

Except you seem to be missing the obvious difference. Norman's transformation and Ben's death are the BEGINNINGS of the stories. Gwen's death is the end. But thanks for playing.

[Robin91939]

I want the Mary Jane story to be the focal point of the new franchise.

Let me explain:

Movie one:
- Doc Ock as the villain.
- Gwen, Harry, Norman and Captain Stacey introduced.
- Peter is in love with Gwen.
- Captain Stacey is killed by Ock. Gwen blames Spidey.
-Connors introduced
- MJ is teased through film and introduced at film's end: "Face it Tiger, you just hit the jackpot".

Movie Two:
-Peter and Gwen are together
-Norman becomes Green Goblin.
-Strife between Peter and Harry
-Eddie Brock introduced.
-Confrontation on the bridge.
-Goblin kills Gwen Stacey.
-Goblin dies.
-Spider-man thinks of quitting in a deep depression.

Movie Three.
-Mary Jane is there for Peter and becomes a great friend.
-Black Suit introduced.
-Lizard as villain, and Kraven.
-Peter and MJ begin to date.
-Third film ends with MJ and Peter together.

I have three more films mapped out as well.


But there should be a build up to both Gwen's death as well as the rise of the Goblin and the introduction and romance with Mary-Jane Watson. It should be about a girl, but not "all about A girl". It should be about the TWO women of Peter's life and what they taught him about life.

Spider-man: Blue would be a good jump off.

-R

[Rodrigo90]

Heres a scene from a script Im doing.

Liz Allen - "Peter...you know my friend my Gwen Stacy right?"

"Should I?"

"C'mon,I know you have a major crush on her, but youre too chicken to ask her out,Harry told me and Ive her told her"

"Well Harry has got it completely wrong,no I dont and you can tell her that as well..."

"Well,thats too bad. What with prom coming up and you without a date....Not too mention the fact she likes you too. But you still have your Aunt May to accompany you I guess"

"Gwen likes me? SURRRRE! Get lost!"

"Ah! Knew it,look I'll give you her number...See you later"

"How do I know this isnt Flash Thompsons number?"

"Why would I have his? Just call it and see who answers. Besides,she asked me to give to you...I guess she cant resist the sweet charms of a nerd."

"Thanks,I think...but I swear to God, if this is Flash's number or..."

"She's expecting your call...oh and Pete.. Dont screw this up,otherwise me and Harry are going to write a movie about you called "The 80 Year Old Virgin".

[SamuraiSon6]

I want the Mary Jane story to be the focal point of the new franchise.

Let me explain:

Movie one:
- Doc Ock as the villain.
- Gwen, Harry, Norman and Captain Stacey introduced.
- Peter is in love with Gwen.
- Captain Stacey is killed by Ock. Gwen blames Spidey.
-Connors introduced
- MJ is teased through film and introduced at film's end: "Face it Tiger, you just hit the jackpot".

Movie Two:
-Peter and Gwen are together
-Norman becomes Green Goblin.
-Strife between Peter and Harry
-Eddie Brock introduced.
-Confrontation on the bridge.
-Goblin kills Gwen Stacey.
-Goblin dies.
-Spider-man thinks of quitting in a deep depression.

Movie Three.
-Mary Jane is there for Peter and becomes a great friend.
-Black Suit introduced.
-Lizard as villain, and Kraven.
-Peter and MJ begin to date.
-Third film ends with MJ and Peter together.

I have three more films mapped out as well.


But there should be a build up to both Gwen's death as well as the rise of the Goblin and the introduction and romance with Mary-Jane Watson. It should be about a girl, but not "all about A girl". It should be about the TWO women of Peter's life and what they taught him about life.

Spider-man: Blue would be a good jump off.

-R

Robin, I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I highly doubt that would ever happen. I know you have some big differences in there, but generally, its far too similar to the three movies we we shown over the last decade. we may get some similar villains by the end of the "new" series, but up front i think they will have to separate themselves

[Abaddon]

^yes. We will not be seeing goblins anytime soon. Not any green ones anyhow.

[batman11]

For the longest time, I always thought a cool dilemma would be if Peter and Gwen were eventually an item, but he always had this connection with MJ (become good friends, spend time together "get" each other, etc.) and then as things are getting complicated for Peter, he is faced with the Goblin bridge situation, but twisted: MJ in one hand, Gwen in the other. But, as we know, a very similar scenario was used in SM1, so it would be way to much a retread.

[JustABill]

That makes the scene even more personal though and hopefully by the time we got around to Goblin it'd be the third in a trilogy of films, so it'd be distanced enough from Raimi's first Spider-Man film.

[batman11]

That makes the scene even more personal though and hopefully by the time we got around to Goblin it'd be the third in a trilogy of films, so it'd be distanced enough from Raimi's first Spider-Man film.

Oh yeah, definitely. Depending on the use of the villains, it would most likely be in the third (slight possibility of the second...could still be too soon). I just think it would make for a heartbreaking scene, because we know Peter is fu****. If the characters were developed strongly enough, we would be struggling with the choice alongside Peter. As an audience, which character would we rather see him with? Who do we like more for Peter at this point? Will we be mad at Peter for the choice he makes? Makes it more personal for the audience. And imagine the guilt of choosing to jump for one over the other, with that choice resulting in the death of someone close...could be deep stuff. That said, the bridge complex is still incredibly tragic without adding MJ into the mix, but it's just an idea I've always had that would, IMO, make it that much more heavy on the heart of both Peter and the viewer.

[spiderman2012]

sounds good

[Robin91939]

If we won't be seeing any Goblins, or at least any green ones, it's kind of pointless to have this thread.

There is no reason to kill Gwen if not to have the Green Goblin do it. If we gave that honor to another villain, it wouldn't be right.

The new series is going to built, I think, as more than just one trilogy. I'm thinking three films in high school and three in college.

If we are going to get Gwen as a supporting character in a large capacity, the only way to move from her as the only love interest to Mary Jane as the only love interest is to kill Gwen.

Also, if we are going to have Harry Osborn in the series....which is a must because he is Peter's best friend, there has to be Norman and there has to be at least ONE Goblin with hints at the Goblin legacy. This was messed up in Spider-man 3, they REALLY dropped the ball on a great set up of this legacy, no reason why this new series cannot rectify this.

We will probably get new villains. Lizard, Electro, and Vulture come to mind as sure fire possibilities. But- just like you cannot retell the Batman story without reusing villains like Joker and Two-face you cannot retell Spider-man's story without using Ock or the Green Goblin.

I sincerely hope that they do not let the previous franchise or the time that has elapsed between franchises hinder them creatively. They are using this reboot as a way to get themselves out of writing themselves into several corners in the previous franchise (introducing Gwen too late, killing Eddie Brock too early, and several others) it would be dumb to let the reboot itself be a corner to have to get out of.

They should have free reign on the story and characters and just make the best films possible. If they do that, it doesn't matter if these are villains we've seen before. If they are presented in a new way, with different dramatic weight behind them--it will work.

-R

[Ace of Knaves]

Agreed. Well said.

[grand-I-am]

If I hear another mention of Gwen Stacy i'm going to lose my mind.

[Ace of Knaves]

Well don't come into the Spidey threads.

[JustABill]

Gwen Stacy. Gwen Stacy. Gwen Stacy.

What have you got against Gwen Stacy? We are just talking about Gwen Stacy? You know...the legendary Gwen Stacy? Iconic Gwen Stacy? Gwen Stacy from the great Spider-Man books? Died in the great stunning arc Night Gwen Stacy Died? Yeah, that Gwen Stacy. So what you got against Gwen Stacy?

:D

[TheSlag]

*whispers Gwen Stacy*... *watches grand-I-Am IMPLODE :woot:

Ummm.. think you're in the wrong thread then my friend. :cwink:

To me, it's not that we will be seeing the GG until probably the 3rd movie of the reboot. We need time to establish Gwen first, and develop her as Peter's main love interest.

And there is several storylines they could use that revolve around Gwen, that would help to establish the impact of Gwen's death arc. Such as, establishing her father, and her father's and Peter's relationship.

And DEFINITELY the story arc of Capt Stacy's death, with Gwen blaming Spider-Man for his death.

So, no GG1 til probably the 3rd movie, but we Definitely need to start establishing Norman Osborn from the beginning.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea Gwen Stacey, Peter's first true love. The Death of Gwen Stacey is like, the best ever Spider-Man story.

Oh no wait, the best Spidey stories involve the symbiotes right?

[TheSlag]

Gwen Stacy. Gwen Stacy. Gwen Stacy.

What have you got against Gwen Stacy? We are just talking about Gwen Stacy? You know...the legendary Gwen Stacy? Iconic Gwen Stacy? Gwen Stacy from the great Spider-Man books? Died in the great stunning arc Night Gwen Stacy Died? Yeah, that Gwen Stacy. So what you got against Gwen Stacy?

:D

LOL :up: :woot:

[JustABill]

Yes, definitely have to off Pops before Gwen. They should even have her leave at the end of the film, before the filming that would be about her death. Sure comic fans would be smacked across the face of what's coming, but I'd love to see it happen.

[Rodrigo90]

Well can we have a realistic approach if Gwen acvuses Spidey killing her father? Cause after Norman died in Spider-Man 1,I wouldve expected a manhunt and public hating against him in 2.

What they should do. JJ hates Spidey (for personal reasons mainly) and uses The Daily Bugle as a weapon to slander Spider-Man. But the public adore him and denounce The Bugle as slander,so Peter actually doesnt mind taking photos and selling them to JJ,cause everyone knows its BS in The Bugle (The photos also put him in heroic situations,but that doesnt stop JJ twisting things).

BUT. After Captain Stacy is murdered and Spidey is spotted over his body by Gwen,the whole city turns against him and ofcourse JJ is overwhelmed with happiness, So Spidey must find the real killer and clear his name.

[AnorexicBatman]

Sony does want to go darker and grittier.
What could be darker than having both your beloved Uncle and your GF die in the same week and the villain (Harry could be the first Goblin this time) escape scot-free.

Basically... Spider-Man fails... hard... a tragic tale...

Sorry Peter, no "Happy Little tale about a girl this time"

God I sound like Mephisto!

[Robin91939]

I understand the concern of bringing back villains that we've seen, especially ones we've seen done well. But I'm really thinking that the three main villains we will get in these films are Doc Ock, Green Goblin and Venom. I think that Ock will be in the first and we will get the death of Captain Stacey. Norman and Eddie Brock will be introduced. The second film will deal with the death of Gwen, ending the love rectangle plot. The third will feature Venom and maybe another villain yet to be seen on screen.

It's not exactly what I want, but it's what I feel will happen. They aren't going to use Vulture or a lesser name in a reboot that people will be unsure about wanting to see. Ock is proven, people loved him.

Goblin won't be the first villain, but he needs to be used in this new series. And we know that the studio loves Venom.....plus they have a spin off they need to build towards.

-R

[Abaddon]

The thing is, some of you act as if the whole purpose of her character was to die and make room for Mary Jane. The story where she died was powerful because she was an actual developed character. She was the leading lady in the series. And if things had gone differently Peter and Gwen would have gotten married and lived some ever after. It does a disservice to the character to use her as a plot device to get Pete with MJ so we can have other stories with her that could have easily been done with Gwen. I'm not against seeing her death play out, but I don't have any sort of sadistic desire to see her quickly removed from the series. I don't get the obsession with trilogies either. The third film is generally the weakest if film history is any indication.

Beyond that you can't expect the studio to pick up on characters from an already successful series and do a different version of the same story. There was over a decade of time between The Dark Knight and Burton's Batman. And all the films in between were heavily criticized and featured a rotation of actors even though they all followed the same continuity.

[Deaths Head II]

The thing is, some of you act as if the whole purpose of her character was to die and make room for Mary Jane. The story where she died was powerful because she was an actual developed character. She was the leading lady in the series. And if things had gone differently Peter and Gwen would have gotten married and lived some ever after. It does a disservice to the character to use her as a plot device to get Pete with MJ so we can have other stories with her that could have easily been done with Gwen. I'm not against seeing her death play out, but I don't have any sort of sadistic desire to see her quickly removed from the series. I don't get the obsession with trilogies either. The third film is generally the weakest if film history is any indication.

Beyond that you can't expect the studio to pick up on characters from an already successful series and do a different version of the same story. There was over a decade of time between The Dark Knight and Burton's Batman. And all the films in between were heavily criticized and featured a rotation of actors even though they all followed the same continuity.

I agree with all of the above.

The demand that Gwen show up just to die really annoys me.

[TheSlag]

this is coming from a guy that loved the Gwen Stacy character.

She should Die.

Take 3 films to develop her character and entrench her with the GA, just like she was with the Comic Audience, and her death will be meaningful and shocking, just like it was back then.

Edit - and IF you DO Sony.. Guard this storyline, do not leak it, do not even hint at it with previews. Let us be blissfully ignorant going in, thinking NOPE, they did not have the guts to do it.

Synopsis The Night Gwen Stacy Died

Peter, his girlfriend Gwen Stacy, and friend Mary Jane Watson visit Harry, who is in a sorry state. His father Norman is livid about Harry's condition, blames Peter, Gwen, and Mary Jane for Harry's drug abuse, and throws them out. When Norman hears that he is facing financial ruin, he suffers a breakdown, and suddenly remembers everything. Norman again becomes the Green Goblin and makes it his goal to kill Peter/Spider-Man for all the misery he imagines Spider-Man has caused him and his family.

The Green Goblin abducts Gwen and lures Spider-Man to the George Washington Bridge. Holding an unconscious Gwen, he gloats at Peter. The two fight, and just when Spider-Man seems to get hold of Gwen, Norman hurls her off the bridge. Spider-Man shoots a web strand at her legs, and catches her. As he pulls her up, he thinks he has saved her. However, he soon realizes she is already dead. Peter is unsure whether the whiplash from her sudden stop broke her neck or if Osborn had broken it previously, but he blames himself for her death regardless. The Green Goblin escapes, and Peter cries over Gwen's corpse and swears deadly revenge.

Spider-Man tracks Green Goblin down to a warehouse where Peter beats Norman to a pulp. But he cannot bring himself to kill him and freezes. Norman uses the opportunity to send his glider to impale Spider-Man from behind. Warned by his spider-sense, Peter jumps away just in time, and the glider instead impales the Green Goblin and seemingly kills him.

Peter goes home, feeling washed-out, hurt, and deeply empty. When he meets Mary Jane, her sympathy is lost on him. He only sees MJ as a carefree party girl, unable to feel his pain. But then, Mary Jane also cries, and for the first time, the two characters relate.

*wow*

[JustABill]

I like your thinking Slag. :up: :up:

[TheSlag]

I want to throw something out I have been thinking/wondering about just to see what everyone would think if they took this route.

Instead of killing Gwen, how would you feel if they basically changed the storyline to have the Goblin kill Aunt May in the 3rd film (or later).

Would it have the same impact, or not?

I have thought about a broken Peter (no mask obviously) holding a dieing Aunt May, where she tells him that she had known he was Spider-Man before this unmasking by the Goblin.

I am not sure, this is Gwen's Legacy to me, but it could be way to still fulfill the Goblin Legacy without having to go the exact same route.

Thoughts?

[JustABill]

Hmm, that actually could work and might even be more evil and menacing of a legacy for Norman to have than killing Gwen.

[Robin91939]

The thing is, some of you act as if the whole purpose of her character was to die and make room for Mary Jane. The story where she died was powerful because she was an actual developed character. She was the leading lady in the series. And if things had gone differently Peter and Gwen would have gotten married and lived some ever after. It does a disservice to the character to use her as a plot device to get Pete with MJ so we can have other stories with her that could have easily been done with Gwen. I'm not against seeing her death play out, but I don't have any sort of sadistic desire to see her quickly removed from the series. I don't get the obsession with trilogies either. The third film is generally the weakest if film history is any indication.

Beyond that you can't expect the studio to pick up on characters from an already successful series and do a different version of the same story. There was over a decade of time between The Dark Knight and Burton's Batman. And all the films in between were heavily criticized and featured a rotation of actors even though they all followed the same continuity.

If Jason Todd was introduced into the Batman film series....his point would solely be to die.

It does not matter that he was a well fleshed out character that was around for 5 or 6 years. It doesn't matter that he was like a son to Bruce Wayne....his greatest impact on our heroes life was in death.

I'm not saying that Gwen can't be a great, well fleshed out character in the film's that she is in...but ultimately, she has to die. She has to make room for MJ. Why? Because MJ is the one that Peter ended up with, time and again. MJ is the one who survived.

Like Jason, Gwen was Peter's biggest failure as a hero. It renews his crusade just as losing Jason reminded Bruce that his fight was not yet over. She has been just as important, probably more, in death than while alive. I would love for a film to follow the ideas of Spider-man: Blue. Have Peter recount his first meetings with Gwen and how they fell in love. But have him end up with Mary Jane and have her understand her husband's and her loss, in losing Gwen.

She shouldn't be introduced and immediately killed...but she cannot survive. Her importance dead is too great. It separates the Goblin as his arch-enemy. It shows his mortality as a hero. A hero has to lose to have his victories stand out. To have his greatest love fall in his fight against evil was something fresh and original when it happened, which is why it was such a landmark.

-R

[CrypticOne]

I say keep Gwen Stacy in the movies until at least the end of the second one.

[Dangerous]

I want Gwen as the love interest w/ no MJ in the film.

But it would be stupid to kill her in the first one, they can do that in number 2.

The 2012 film should end w/ PP & Gwen together and everything rosy.

[sdc10]

Im not saying that she should die in the first movie, Gwen should be built up. But lets face it the characters destiny is to die. Her death is as much a driving force for Peter as Uncle Ben's death was.

[cabjvitu]

i would love if this could be adapted forgetting everything else...

anyways..

they say they will go the ultimate route... meh

i hope MJ is not with him at the same school, they can play it like in the comics.. ¨oh i don´t like blind dates¨ then the famous ¨face it tiger you just hit the jackpot¨line.. maybe not even in the first movie.. like you can hint it from half of the first movie.. have gwen instead as his interest.. building till the moment of her death prolly by the end of the second movie.. that´s the moment pete stops being a teenager.. and the third movie bieng him becoming the man, the spider-MAN. Prolly facing this new threat called Venom, who knows who he is and TERRORIZES him and the girl who make him believe he can be happy again, MJ.

IMO they should not go for an origins story again... but it looks like they will... if they go for ultimate ways.. some licenses with the character were horrible..
anyways i would LOVE for a spidey in his 30s.. oh well.. these days with the succes of tdk and twilight, everything looks like it has to be DARK or TWEEN FOR.. that´s the formula, suist might think...
anyhow.. with Marc Weeb at the helm, a guy who could really get big if doing well, Sony manages to get a cheaper budget and more maleable director.. i just hope he has a saying in casting... but i have faith, i really liked 500 days of summer.. even though it is a movie pretty different from a spiderman movie, it could be linked somehow.. for making it more real with peter´s view of life.. not just having him crying at the screen like fat tobey did...
still he did not make a movie for teenies... and we all pray this is not the first one.

poor budget, poor script, poor directing and acting : twilight
this is not the spidey we want.

Not a huge budget like before, going smaller, but getting less cheese, good characters, great spidey moments, having a FUN and adventurous spiderman movie.
This is what i hope for, under this new conditions.

OH and spidey being spidey cracking jokes please.

ps: a thing that worries me is the look of the suit... but for that it´s just wait and see.

ps 2: peter is a cool guy not a complete nerd, with the spidey powers he gets cooler as a person too.

[SpideyRacoon44]

If Gwen dies, it should not be mentioned in the previews or anything. She has to be a well developed character and honestly, I think they should change her death just a bit. Green Goblin still kills her, but I think they should change it so the fans don't know exactly what is going to happen.

[sdc10]

they say they will go the ultimate route... meh


Just because they said they are going the ultimate route does not mean the movie will be a direct translation of it. Obviously they are gonna look at ultimate spidey because he is a kid in high school in that book which is the same setting and tone they want for this film.

[NinjaCarm]

I want Gwen as the love interest w/ no MJ in the film.

But it would be stupid to kill her in the first one, they can do that in number 2.

The 2012 film should end w/ PP & Gwen together and everything rosy.

I concur.

[SLYspyder]

I would love to see the GS storyline. That's one big ball that was dropped with the Raimi movies because he was rushing it.

You don't need three movies to set it up, not even two, but I'd prefer two.

Have Peter and Gwen become an item in the first one and are still at item in the second one. Then at the end of the second one, we have can the bridge scene. Have the uncertainty of if Spidey could've saved her or not. And most definitely have the anger and rage when Gwen is dead.

I envision SM webbing Gwen as the Goblin glides away laughing. He pulls her up then carries her lifeless body and lays her on the ground, you can hear him crying. Then two squad cars roll up and 4 cops get out and tell him to freeze and put his hands up. He has no time for this, in one swift move, he slaps both cars out of his way, you can hear the sound of crunching metal and webs up all 4 of the officers, then goes back to be with Gwen.

[MikeFrost]

Well it seems kinda ripped off...

the general audience doesn't know aboit Gwens death in the comics...

Are you serious?

A comic book movie ripping off the comics its based on? Outrageous! Talk about lack of criativity there!

[Reikowolf]

I feel it's important to write an arc and only put in something that is essential to move the story along. There's a rule in script writing, don't introduce a gun in the first act unless you're going to use it in the final act.

And ideal way to plan the franchise out this time around would be

Director A (Webb)
The Night Gwen Stacey Died (Spider-Man 1-3)
- Peter and Gwen, MJ introduced as a secondary character in the second movie
- Entirely in High school, ending in senior year
- The original baddies but Only the Goblin from the Raimi franchise (example: Chameleon/ Mysterio / Rhino)
- baddies should only be in script if they serve the overall story, not for fan service.

In line with the comics, the first three movies take up the early mythos with some college life arcs but all taking place in highschool

Director B
The Six Arm Saga
- university years (Spider-Man 4-6)
- Introduce Jean De-Wolfe
- Crime saga as the underworld has become organized against spider-man
- Villains would include (The Lizard, Morbius, kraven, Silvermane as the main villain)
- Peter and MJ establish relationship in 4

The second major arc has Spider-Man introduced into an adult world of crime and dealing with physical changes of his own.. almost like a second puberty with his mutation

Director C
The black suit (Spider-Man 7-9)
- partners in crime with the black cat
- Villains include: Hobgoblin, Dr Octopus, and Venom as the main villain)
- Spider-Man disillusioned from crime fighting.
- Peter and MJ's relationship is at risk due to the black cat and Peter's change in attitude. Peter ends up with MJ by the end of 8 but must deal with Venom in 9.

This arc would begin with the introduction of the black suit and end with Venom. A sins of the father type story begins as Harry realizes who his father was. The arc will begin and end on the darkest tone for the series.

Spider-Man 10
- The Sinister 6, the top 5 villains of all 9 films
- Norman Osborn is revealed to be alive and leads them against spider-man.
- Spider-Man's retribution
- Ends with the wedding

I cannot think of a better way to end the saga with a bang. Ultimately, this would be the point to end it, otherwise we go into Clone Saga territory.

Just my two cents

[Reikowolf]

I feel it's important to write an arc and only put in something that is essential to move the story along. There's a rule in script writing, don't introduce a gun in the first act unless you're going to use it in the final act.

And ideal way to plan the franchise out this time around would be

Director A (Webb)
The Night Gwen Stacey Died (Spider-Man 1-3)
- Peter and Gwen, MJ introduced as a secondary character in the second movie
- Entirely in High school, ending in senior year
- The original baddies but Only the Goblin from the Raimi franchise (example: Chameleon/ Mysterio / Rhino)
- baddies should only be in script if they serve the overall story, not for fan service.

In line with the comics, the first three movies take up the early mythos with some college life arcs but all taking place in highschool

Director B
The Six Arm Saga
- university years (Spider-Man 4-6)
- Introduce Jean De-Wolfe
- Crime saga as the underworld has become organized against spider-man
- Villains would include (The Lizard, Morbius, kraven, Silvermane as the main villain)
- Peter and MJ establish relationship in 4

The second major arc has Spider-Man introduced into an adult world of crime and dealing with physical changes of his own.. almost like a second puberty with his mutation

Director C
The black suit (Spider-Man 7-9)
- partners in crime with the black cat
- Villains include: Hobgoblin, Dr Octopus, and Venom as the main villain)
- Spider-Man disillusioned from crime fighting.
- Peter and MJ's relationship is at risk due to the black cat and Peter's change in attitude. Peter ends up with MJ by the end of 8 but must deal with Venom in 9.

This arc would begin with the introduction of the black suit and end with Venom. A sins of the father type story begins as Harry realizes who his father was. The arc will begin and end on the darkest tone for the series.

Spider-Man 10
- The Sinister 6, the top 5 villains of all 9 films
- Norman Osborn is revealed to be alive and leads them against spider-man.
- Spider-Man's retribution
- Ends with the wedding

I cannot think of a better way to end the saga with a bang. Ultimately, this would be the point to end it, otherwise we go into Clone Saga territory.

Just my two cents

[Reikowolf]

the director of spider-man 10 would be someone new or the director from the most popular of the 3 arcs

[Dangerous]

delete.

[Dangerous]

Just have Gwen as the main Love interest in the new film, and have them get together by the end of the new film.

Then in 2 have the Goblin off her,- simple.

[S_H_F_4839]

I would like to see the gwen stacy story told right. I dont want her being punk emo goth chick she was in the ultimate, im leaning more along the lines of her being peters best friend ala spectacular spiderman, and he asks her out as he becomes more confident in himself the longer he is spiderman.

[The Bat-Man]

I definitely want to see the Gwen Stacy storyline and I want to see it done right. I think her and Peter should end up together by the end of the first film and then at the end of the second, there can be the famous bridge scene where she dies. It's hard making comic book movies. Of course, we would love to see ten or twelve of these things made, so they can incorporate the whole story, but that's just not realistic. These things take years to make. There was three Spider-Man films between 2002 and 2007. That's about as quick as it gets, I think.

What I'm saying is, yes, they should definitely try to go back to the beginning and do the story the correct way, but we also have to realize that the film world is not the comic book world. They can't just churn out a new story every month. They can't do everything from the comics, but that's alright, because that's why we have the comics. The films are just supposed to be adaptations.

[Parker Wayne]

I definitely want to see the Gwen Stacy storyline and I want to see it done right. I think her and Peter should end up together by the end of the first film and then at the end of the second, there can be the famous bridge scene where she dies. It's hard making comic book movies. Of course, we would love to see ten or twelve of these things made, so they can incorporate the whole story, but that's just not realistic. These things take years to make. There was three Spider-Man films between 2002 and 2007. That's about as quick as it gets, I think.

What I'm saying is, yes, they should definitely try to go back to the beginning and do the story the correct way, but we also have to realize that the film world is not the comic book world. They can't just churn out a new story every month. They can't do everything from the comics, but that's alright, because that's why we have the comics. The films are just supposed to be adaptations.

She definitely shouldn't die the same way she died in the comics for two reasons:

- It's predictable (at least for comics fans)
- It's redundant (the bridge battle scene was used in Spiderman)

They should change it a bit.

[Dangerous]

Hell no, her death is iconic.
She should die at the end of the second film by getting shoved off the BB.

[The Slang]

Atleast the second film

[The Slang]

She definitely shouldn't die the same way she died in the comics for two reasons:

- It's predictable (at least for comics fans)
- It's redundant (the bridge battle scene was used in Spiderman)

They should change it a bit.

Yeh, and the titanic shouldn't have sunk and Jesus should have been saved by ninjas at the end of the passion.

[SuperFerret]

Jesus should have been saved by ninjas at the end of the passion.

Jewish ninjas, so it's politically correct.

[LarryLegend]

this is coming from a guy that loved the Gwen Stacy character.

She should Die.

Take 3 films to develop her character and entrench her with the GA, just like she was with the Comic Audience, and her death will be meaningful and shocking, just like it was back then.

Edit - and IF you DO Sony.. Guard this storyline, do not leak it, do not even hint at it with previews. Let us be blissfully ignorant going in, thinking NOPE, they did not have the guts to do it.

Synopsis The Night Gwen Stacy Died

Peter, his girlfriend Gwen Stacy, and friend Mary Jane Watson visit Harry, who is in a sorry state. His father Norman is livid about Harry's condition, blames Peter, Gwen, and Mary Jane for Harry's drug abuse, and throws them out. When Norman hears that he is facing financial ruin, he suffers a breakdown, and suddenly remembers everything. Norman again becomes the Green Goblin and makes it his goal to kill Peter/Spider-Man for all the misery he imagines Spider-Man has caused him and his family.

The Green Goblin abducts Gwen and lures Spider-Man to the George Washington Bridge. Holding an unconscious Gwen, he gloats at Peter. The two fight, and just when Spider-Man seems to get hold of Gwen, Norman hurls her off the bridge. Spider-Man shoots a web strand at her legs, and catches her. As he pulls her up, he thinks he has saved her. However, he soon realizes she is already dead. Peter is unsure whether the whiplash from her sudden stop broke her neck or if Osborn had broken it previously, but he blames himself for her death regardless. The Green Goblin escapes, and Peter cries over Gwen's corpse and swears deadly revenge.

Spider-Man tracks Green Goblin down to a warehouse where Peter beats Norman to a pulp. But he cannot bring himself to kill him and freezes. Norman uses the opportunity to send his glider to impale Spider-Man from behind. Warned by his spider-sense, Peter jumps away just in time, and the glider instead impales the Green Goblin and seemingly kills him.

Peter goes home, feeling washed-out, hurt, and deeply empty. When he meets Mary Jane, her sympathy is lost on him. He only sees MJ as a carefree party girl, unable to feel his pain. But then, Mary Jane also cries, and for the first time, the two characters relate.

*wow*

He's alive!!!!!!:wow::wow::wow:

Totally agree. Gwen's arc would be great but it would need to be kept a secret. Shot multiple endings.

[TheSlag]

He's alive!!!!!!:wow::wow::wow:

Totally agree. Gwen's arc would be great but it would need to be kept a secret. Shot multiple endings.

The "Legend" walks among us.

Now, if we could just get a certain "Brother" and a certain "Flower"... the world would be... "right". :cwink:

Hey Larry, I like your idea about shooting multiple endings to help to keep it secret. I would LOVE to see them blindside at least the GA with "The Night Gwen Stacy Died".

[some guy]

I mean no disrespect, but isn't it kinda sick that we want to see Gwen on screen just so we can watch her die?

[TheSlag]

No, It's simply respect for a character and a great storylien that is at the heart of Spider-Man.

It is the Goblin's Legacy.

[Rodrigo90]

Emma Roberts would make a nice Gwen IMO.

[Hypestyle]

I'd like to see Amanda Bynes play Gwen.. Amber Heard can play Liz..

[©KAW]

This would have to be told in a serious and dramatic way. And I would want to see and hear her body hit the pavement. When she breaks, I wanna see Spider-Man break mentally. It has to be shot with a gritty feel to it or it simply won't work. And I would want "For Disturbing Visuals" placed along side that PG-13.

[some guy]

This would have to be told in a serious and dramatic way. And I would want to see and hear her body hit the pavement. When she breaks, I wanna see Spider-Man break mentally. It has to be shot with a gritty feel to it or it simply won't work. And I would want "For Disturbing Visuals" placed along side that PG-13.

:wow: You're kidding, right? This is Spider-Man, not some Final Destination let's see 'em die horribly movie.

Let's do this discreetly and respectfully, please. It can be played out dramatically without having to resort to gruesomeness. In the comics, it was shocking because Spidey thought that he saved Gwen, then soon learned that he didn't.

[TheSlag]

:wow: You're kidding, right? This is Spider-Man, not some Final Destination let's see 'em die horribly movie.

Let's do this discreetly and respectfully, please. It can be played out dramatically without having to resort to gruesomeness. In the comics, it was shocking because Spidey thought that he saved Gwen, then soon learned that he didn't.


Agreed. The greatness is Peter thinking he saved her, only to find out otherwise.

I am hoping a psychotic Goblin is deliberate in his attempt to murder the girl Peter loves, and I "WANT" to see an angry Peter go balistic on Norman/Goblin that makes the final battle in SM1 seem like a walk in the park in comparison.

[Mrpaul]

The Gwen story is iconic and it should be done like the comics

[TheSlag]

The Gwen story is iconic and it should be done like the comics

I definitely agree it's iconic, but I would not mind them changing the story somewhat as long as they stay true to the basic storyline.

The most key point (to me) is Peter thinking he has saved Gwen, and then discovering.. that he has not.

[NowTheWorld]

So when does everyone think Gwen should die? I've seen alot of posts saying the 2nd film, which I really agree with. It's enough time to develop her character, and soon enough for it to be unexpected and tragic. The majority of Spidey continuity is post-Gwen, and a number of stories are a result of her death. I think the sequel is the perfect time to kill off Gwen.

[TheSlag]

I prefer the 3rd movie of the reboot. That gives more time to establish the Character, as well as allowing time to establish Capt Stacy's character, and tell his death story, and allow time for the storyline where Gwen blames Spider-Man for the death of her father.

I think the 3rd movie would be more of a shock to the General Audience too, where she is even more established and loved.

Similiar to what happened in the comics. *wipes away a tear for his Gwen* :cwink:

[NowTheWorld]

Yeah, but look at it this way; Spider-Man has nearly 50 years worth of stories. Gwen was only around for, I believe, seven of those years. And in continuity, I don't think Peter even knew Gwen for more than two years. Assume the rebooted film franchise will have six movies. There are so many important stories to be told that occured afte Gwen died. Hobgoblin, Venom, The Clone Saga, Peter's relationship with Mary Jane. I can't see the Gwen storyline taking up half the series.

[©KAW]

I'm assuming that the reboot will only have 3 movies.

[Doc Ock]

I think Gwen should be featured more in the first reboot film than MJ.

[©KAW]

It would actually be cooler if MJ wasn't featured at all in the first movie, and shows up in the 2nd. This way, the entire first film won't feature the girl from the previous. And it holds focus on Gwen. I would still be worried that they'll make this story to light during the death scene and just ruin it. I don't want to see a hammy death.

[Anwar]

Have the first film be Peter and Gwen getting together, the second film has them together with Gwen maybe finding out Peter is Spidey (or she just says "You don't even change your voice, of course I knew it was you!") and then Goblin kills her in the third.

That wraps up the first set of stories, and if you want to have Venom be in the 4th (since Goblin is done for, at least temporarily) Gwen's recent death is a good enough reason for Peter to be darker and meaner when the symbiote gets to him.

[TheSlag]

Yeah, but look at it this way; Spider-Man has nearly 50 years worth of stories. Gwen was only around for, I believe, seven of those years. And in continuity, I don't think Peter even knew Gwen for more than two years. Assume the rebooted film franchise will have six movies. There are so many important stories to be told that occured afte Gwen died. Hobgoblin, Venom, The Clone Saga, Peter's relationship with Mary Jane. I can't see the Gwen storyline taking up half the series.

The clone saga was a joke and should NEVER see the light of day in the movies. Hobgoblin is the poor man's Green Goblin, and who says MJ will not be a part of the first 3 movies of the reboot?

MJ comes off much better in the classic version where she is there to help Peter pick up the pieces after Gwen's death... Not to replace her,

I think the Stacy and the Osborn storylines are the heart of the Spider-Man series.

I think you should build the second trilogy around the symbiote/Venom/MJ.. and (I HOPE).. Aunt May's storyline (death).

I think THAT could be some of the most powerful moments in the whole franchise if done right.

[©KAW]

Yeah, but you also have to consider that they already did the Goblin stuff, they may not want to revisit any Goblin story at all within the first three films.

[Anwar]

By the time the movie comes out, it would have been ten years since Dafoe was the Green Goblin. It was only 8 years between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins, meaning that by 2016 (when the third movie presumably would come out) and the Goblin (hopefully) appears there it would have been 14 years. That's plenty of time.

[Ethermatic]

Personally, I think that if Gwen Stacy is introduced and used closer to her version from the comics, that she should be established throughout the first three films. Make no mistake that Sony wants to keep the rights to Spider-Man and therefore wants the reboot to become something along the lines of James Bond -- a continuous series.

Honestly, I'm hoping that only the first film will have Peter Parker in high school and that, like the comics, he meets Gwen Stacy in college, perhaps towards the end of said first film.

The complete arc should use Captain Stacy's death for a conclusion to a second film, so that an entire third film can be used to portray the struggles and development between Peter and Gwen and their floundering relationship. Not to mention Gwen's new hate for Spider-Man.

Once the third film comes around and people have already accepted Gwen Stacy and has gotten to know her, she can be killed with a much better emotional response from viewers. Obviously, it should all be done in the classic way from the comics.

What concerns me is how they might portray her death. Though the Green Goblin threw her off, it was Spider-Man who actually killed her, for the most part. Some details might have to be tweaked so that it's more the Green Goblin's fault than Spider-Man's.

Also, I'm kinda feelin' AnnaSophia Robb for Gwen Stacy.

[some guy]

I'm thinking about whether Gwen should die in the 2nd or 3rd film. If we're thinking in trilogies here, having her die in the 3rd one would end the trilogy at a real low point for the hero, which might turn some viewers off. Even when Spidey avenges her and defeats the Goblin or whoever in the end, its still kind of a negative ending. If they do it in the 2nd movie, it could be like his Empire Strikes Back, the dark second chapter where the hero suffers his greatest defeat. Then the third could be how he rises up from his tragedy. Just a thought.

[TheSlag]

I honestly don't know where to begin with this review. I know I have used the word "classic" to describe many issues of Amazing Spider-Man, but that word cannot begin to describe Amazing Spider-Man #121. This is the one single most talked about, argued about, and loved issue in the countless Spider-Man stories that spanned his life, besides his introduction in Amazing Fantasy #15. The events that have led up to this 2 part story seem very innocent looking back, and the blurb on the last page of Amazing Spider-Man #120, did very little to alert readers to what they were about to see on the newsstand and drugstores in a month or so. The bright yellow cover with pictures of all those close to Peter Parker grabs the attention to those with even a remote interest in the character, with it's mysterious appeal as to who is going to die. Back then, it wasn't an every other issue occurrence of a vital cast member or villain dying. It was a true shock, not the "processed shock" readers received all too much beginning in the 1990's. It was believable realism, not the shock-value, over-done, so-called grim and gritty badly written material many readers were exposed to, also beginning in the same time period.

The story came out of nowhere. No advance previews, no internet message boards, very little leaking of creators planned stories, and boy did it shock! Years later, it is still perceived as a shock, even to those who just began to read the older back issues. This is the story EVERY creator of present and future Spider-Man stories are measured up against, but there has never been an issue or story that has come close to the drama, excitement, anger, and sadness, that this issue stirred up. There probably never will.

http://www.samruby.com/AmazingSpider-ManB/amazing_spiderman_121.htm

[NowTheWorld]

I'm thinking about whether Gwen should die in the 2nd or 3rd film. If we're thinking in trilogies here, having her die in the 3rd one would end the trilogy at a real low point for the hero, which might turn some viewers off. Even when Spidey avenges her and defeats the Goblin or whoever in the end, its still kind of a negative ending. If they do it in the 2nd movie, it could be like his Empire Strikes Back, the dark second chapter where the hero suffers his greatest defeat. Then the third could be how he rises up from his tragedy. Just a thought.


Exactly. I think perhaps one of the best eras in Spider-Man comics is the Conway run following Gwen's death, where Peter and MJ are growing closer, Harry becomes the second Goblin, and the Jackal debuts and turns Peter's life upside-down.

My idea for a third film following the death of Gwen would involve Peter wearing the black suit, and taking out his frustrations over her passing as Spider-Man. I think a perfect end to a rebooted trilogy would adapt Peter and MJ's famous first kiss at JFK airport, symbolizing that Peter can love again.

[TheSlag]

Whichever way they go, 1) I hope they "Go it". This bringing Bendis in and saying we're going the Ulitmate route worries me IF they will even "go it". Hope so, and still think they are just covering their bases by getting all opinions/suggestions (which is good), and they will still follow the classic storylines (REALLY hoping) 2) Whichever, 2nd movie or 3rd movie, I HOPE they ARE NOT afraid to be willing to end the movie on a "downer" (Gwen's death). Those films/shows that do, you ALWAYS remember. :up:

[TheSlag]

Yeah, but you also have to consider that they already did the Goblin stuff, they may not want to revisit any Goblin story at all within the first three films.

Not doing "any" Goblin in the first 3 movies of the reboot would be a collosal mistake IMO. And it would give everyone a chance to get that sour taste of the Power Ranger Goblin out of their mouth once and for all.

I really hope we get the storylines of ASM #39/40 told early on in the reboot, where we still have Norman Osborn lurking in the backgrounds, and is part of Peter's life.. wating to fulfill the Goblin's Legacy in the 3rd movie of the reboot.

[Anwar]

Oh for crying out loud, are people STILL wanking over the Goblin outfit? Aside from the costume, I thought he was a really well done character for the confines of one movie.

[TheSlag]

A reboot without the Osborn/Goblin in it makes no sense, if you consider the reboot covering 3 movies (at least).

And yes, the costume is a biggie, just like IF they dressed Spidey as the Scarlet Spider-Man or somesuch, character right or NOT, it would "blow" royally.

[Chris Wallace]

I'd rather they didn't do the Gwen story. 1-we already saw a bridge confrontation in Raimi's films. 2-we've already seen a love interest die in the Dark Knight.
3-some tragedies are easier to cope with in a monthly comic than in a movie.

[TheSlag]

I think a reboot without Gwen's story is pointless. It, the Night Gwen Stacy Died, is Spider-Man's birthright, not the Dark Knight's. Even though I applaud Nolan for having the balls Raimi/Sony NEVER had.

[©KAW]

You got that right, Raimi/Sony ain't got no balls, that's for sure.

Well, it would make the story stronger to start the reboot off with Gwen (I personally don't want to see MJ until the 2nd film) and have Norman Osborn waiting in the background. Raimi movies couldn't function without MJ in any of his stories. I just feel that Sony, is gonna want something different in terms of villains in the reboot. I guess we'll know when they start the full casting. And hope Sony doesn't cast people, and not state who they're playing in the movies (like they tried to do with Eddie Brock) that would really suck.

[TheSlag]

I agree that we will not see the Goblin in the first movie of the reboot. I do expect us to see Norman Osborn in the movie, buidling his character, his relationship to Harry and to Peter though. All, could be preparing for the rise of the Goblin in the second movie of the reboot.

That would probably not be til 2014 at the earliest, probably not til 2015.

But they could be saving the Goblin, and Gwen's death arc for the 3rd movie of the reboot. That could work well if done right, and allow for more establishment of Gwen's character and the Stacy's.

I would think, and hope, the 2 scripts are related, and not just two separate independent villains.

Obviously, they would have to have secondary villains if they tie the 2 stories around one plot/villain.

[©KAW]

Another reason I don't think you'll see a Goblin is because of the merchandising. I know that sounds silly. But Sony is going to want to present a villain(s) that their licensees hasn't been seen before from the previous franchise. Everything has to be new to help with the appeal of something different.

[david icke]

I think a reboot without Gwen's story is pointless. It, the Night Gwen Stacy Died, is Spider-Man's birthright, not the Dark Knight's. Even though I applaud Nolan for having the balls Raimi/Sony NEVER had.

You are in agreement with me that the Raimi movies should not have been 'all about a girl', yet here you are arguing that the Raimi movies should have been 'all about a girl', just a different girl and a different plotline, becuase if they had went straight into that story, that's exactly what the story would have had to have been about.
So we have the 1st movie about the origin, the Uncle Ben murder and Pete accepting his destiny, the Gwen Stacey storyline would have been a mistake to go right into after that. He needs time first to become Spider-man, settle into the role and it's demands, not just plough straight into death after death of a close loved one in each movie.
The Rachel Dawes thing in BB/TDK does not compare at all to 'The Night Gwen Stacey died' in it's scope or impact on the hero.
(edit: RD was not killed because she was Bm's girlfriend, she was killed because she was an assistant DA who was putting up a good fight against the mob, and she wasn't BM's gf either, just a childhood friend he was in love with. Her death was not as a result of his being Batman per se. She could have been killed anyway, like she was going to be in BB, before BM's emergence saved her.
It's a totally different story to TNGSD. )

It wasn't a case of 'balls', it was a case of selecting the right gradient of storytelling, going into TNGSD rightaway would have been like being sent to the moon on a rocket before even getting to grips with the basics of getting on a bus. It would not have given a fair impression of what Spider-man was to an audience, it would have set it up as the most depressing superhero series ever conceived. Yes, SM has it's depressing stuff, and it's very enjoyable in seeing the hero struggle with that, but there is also the triumph over adversity and seemingly unbeatable odds that has to be told, it is an inspiring story. Going from Ben to Gwen? too much too soon, *too* depressing.

[TheSlag]

You are in agreement with me that the Raimi movies should not have been 'all about a girl', yet here you are arguing that the Raimi movies should have been 'all about a girl', just a different girl and a different plotline, becuase if they had went straight into that story, that's exactly what the story would have had to have been about.
So we have the 1st movie about the origin, the Uncle Ben murder and Pete accepting his destiny, the Gwen Stacey storyline would have been a mistake to go right into after that. He needs time first to become Spider-man, settle into the role and it's demands, not just plough straight into death after death of a close loved one in each movie.
The Rachel Dawes thing in BB/TDK does not compare at all to 'The Night Gwen Stacey died' in it's scope or impact on the hero.
(edit: RD was not killed because she was Bm's girlfriend, she was killed because she was an assistant DA who was putting up a good fight against the mob, and she wasn't BM's gf either, just a childhood friend he was in love with. Her death was not as a result of his being Batman per se. She could have been killed anyway, like she was going to be in BB, before BM's emergence saved her.
It's a totally different story to TNGSD. )

It wasn't a case of 'balls', it was a case of selecting the right gradient of storytelling, going into TNGSD rightaway would have been like being sent to the moon on a rocket before even getting to grips with the basics of getting on a bus. It would not have given a fair impression of what Spider-man was to an audience, it would have set it up as the most depressing superhero series ever conceived. Yes, SM has it's depressing stuff, and it's very enjoyable in seeing the hero struggle with that, but there is also the triumph over adversity and seemingly unbeatable odds that has to be told, it is an inspiring story. Going from Ben to Gwen? too much too soon, *too* depressing.

1) It's Stacy, not Stacey
2) Where have I ever said the Reboot or Raimi's version should of killed Gwen in the first movie? Hell, I have been arguing for the 3rd movie at the earliest
3) San & Co (Sony included) did NOT have the balls, as evidenced by NOT doing the story in SM1-3 and NOT planning to even approach in it SM4.
4) Raimi's ALL about ONE girl BS has NOTHING to do with Gwen (or GweMJ montrosity being Pete's main love in ANY film). It has to do WITH the story focusing on their dysfunctional relationship as opposed to "Spider-Man". ASM NEVER did that, Peter's love interest was simply ONE of MANY storylines that was going on. It NEVER was THE dominant storyline, and should NOT be. BE it Gwen, or MJ, or whoever.
5) And whether RD was Batmans girlfiiend or the woman he loved, is simply a matter of semantics.
6) Joker killed RD to corrupt Harvey IMO, and besides WHERE did I say it was exactly like TNGSD? I simply said TDK (and Nolan) had the balls to steal the birthright that was Spider-Man's (villain killing the girl the Hero loves, despite his efforts to save her), and again, I APPLAUD THEM for it,

7) and last, IF you want the same Dansal in Distress BS, Hero saves the day in Spider-Man movies, over and over (Rinse and Repeat), more power to you, I want MORE.

[david icke]

1) It's Stacy, not Stacey
2) Where have I ever said the Reboot or Raimi's version should of killed Gwen in the first movie? Hell, I have been arguing for the 3rd movie at the earliest

I didn't say the first movie, I said the second, and whether it was the second or third i think the point still stands. It's a story for a Spider-man far down the line in his career, not one that shapes him into character, It would be too soon for the first trilogy, second trilogy, yes, once he has been fully developed into the role of SM.


3) San & Co (Sony included) did NOT have the balls, as evidenced by NOT doing the story in SM1-3 and NOT planning to even approach in it SM4.

Even if Raimi had wanted to do it, Marvel/sony probably would not have allowed it at that point, c'mon, look at how he talks about how he was grateful to get permission to go so dark with the scene hitting MJ in 3.
and anyway, he probably felt it was not the right story to go into rightaway, and he would have been right.


4) Raimi's ALL about ONE girl BS has NOTHING to do with Gwen (or GweMJ montrosity being Pete's main love in ANY film). It has to do WITH the story focusing on their dysfunctional relationship as opposed to "Spider-Man". ASM NEVER did that, Peter's love interest was simply ONE of MANY storylines that was going on. It NEVER was THE dominant storyline, and should NOT be. BE it Gwen, or MJ, or whoever.

It would have had to have been exactly the same way, all based around their relationship, for the audience to give as much of a damn about the character being kiilled off as they did when it came time for that to happen in the books.
edit: The reason being of course because everything has to be compressed into two hour movies as opposed to monthly comics.

I'm not calling you a hypocrite, sorry if the way I worded it came across that way, not intentional, I'm just saying that it would have had to have played out the same way with the same focus on a relationship throughout the movies.


5) And whether RD was Batmans girlfiiend or the woman he loved, is simply a matter of semantics.
6) Joker killed RD to corrupt Harvey IMO, and besides WHERE did I say it was exactly like TNGSD? I simply said TDK (and Nolan) had the balls to steal the birthright that was Spider-Man's (villain killing the girl the Hero loves, despite his efforts to save her), and again, I APPLAUD THEM for it,

It was not the same kind of story, there was no big deal to them killing off the hero's love interest. a. she was not a loved character like Stacy was. had not even been in the comics, b. had been played by two different actors, and as a result ,for all intents and purposes, felt like two different characters in the way they were portrayed, ie not much connection to the audience even though featured in two movies.

and so it requires *no balls at all* to kill off such a character, whether the hero is in love with her or not. No big deal at all.
Unike what would be required for the TDGSD, for it to work the audience should love the character, and love the relationship, no thunder has been stolen here, don't worry about that.
If the story is told onscreen it will feel like the first time this has happened onscreen.

7) and last, IF you want the same Dansal in Distress BS, Hero saves the day in Spider-Man movies, over and over (Rinse and Repeat), more power to you, I want MORE.

Of course i don't , I don't even want the damsel to be in distress, the only time i thought that worked was in the 1st movie, and that's because they followed the Stacy plot, up to a point of course.

Dude, as i said, no thunder has been stolen, if you get your wish with this story and it is done successfully, you will come away feeling you've never seen anything like it onscreen before, just like folk did when they read the story in ASpideyman issue 121/122.

[TheSlag]

I didn't say the first movie, I said the second, and whether it was the second or third i think the point still stands. It's a story for a Spider-man far down the line in his career, not one that shapes him into character, It would be too soon for the first trilogy, second trilogy, yes, once he has been fully developed into the role of SM.

And again, as I said, I have been championing the story to not play out til later in the movies also. But you have to consider that we may only get 3 movies, and timelines are much different in the movies from the comic arcs as we get (obviously) fewer movies.



Even if Raimi had wanted to do it, Marvel/sony probably would not have allowed it at that point, c'mon, look at how he talks about how he was grateful to get permission to go so dark with the scene hitting MJ in 3.
and anyway, he probably felt it was not the right story to go into rightaway, and he would have been right.

He (Raimi) had 3, 4 if you count what the script rumors are, to tell that story, and he did not do it. And yes, I blame Sony just as much.

Wow. 3 movies, and the symbiote to influence him (Peter) and the darkest we get is a Peter accidentally striking MJ when she surprises him from behind?

Not good enough in my book. Also, I guess we got the dark symbiote influenced Peter taking another girl to MJ's work to make her "jealous" by doing the Saturday Night Boogie dancing acorss the bar and tables. :whatever:

What a joke.



It would have had to have been exactly the same way, all based around their relationship, for the audience to give as much of a damn about the character being kiilled off as they did when it came time for that to happen in the books.
edit: The reason being of course because everything has to be compressed into two hour movies as opposed to monthly comics.

I'm not calling you a hypocrite, sorry if the way I worded it came across that way, not intentional, I'm just saying that it would have had to have played out the same way with the same focus on a relationship throughout the movies.

I agree that they would of need to build Peter's and Gwen (or MJ in Raimi's verse I guess) relationship to have the death mean anything. I think they could of easily done that in 3 or more movies, WITHOUT making it ALL about ONE girl BS like Raimi did.


It was not the same kind of story, there was no big deal to them killing off the hero's love interest. a. she was not a loved character like Stacy was. had not even been in the comics, b. had been played by two different actors, and as a result ,for all intents and purposes, felt like two different characters in the way they were portrayed, ie not much connection to the audience even though featured in two movies.

By that argument, I WANT TNGSD even more. Becasue it would have EVEN MORE impact than the RD death in TDK.

And the same argument (that RD was not a loved or developed character) could of EASILY been made for Gwen in Raimi's verse. He could of brought in Gwen (basically playing MJ's role from ASM, since MJ is basically playing Gwen's role from ASM) and then set her up to die in SM3 or SM4. (death of a not so well developed character). Not my first choice, but would of shown balls.

My point is more about doing the story right (Gwen and MJ) in the reboot. Folloing the ASM classic storylines for both closer.

and so it requires *no balls at all* to kill off such a character, whether the hero is in love with her or not. No big deal at all.
Unike what would be required for the TDGSD, for it to work the audience should love the character, and love the relationship, no thunder has been stolen here, don't worry about that.
If the story is told onscreen it will feel like the first time this has happened onscreen.

We will have to agree to disagree here. I think it still took balls and a dark realistic approach to kill off RD in TDK. I think withouth that storyline, the whole movie would suffer greatly.

As Raimi's SM verse was REALLY starting to show strains of the same ole, damsal in distress, Hero saves her AGAIN BS. :down:


Of course i don't , I don't even want the damsel to be in distress, the only time i thought that worked was in the 1st movie, and that's because they followed the Stacy plot, up to a point of course.

Dude, as i said, no thunder has been stolen, if you get your wish with this story and it is done successfully, you will come away feeling you've never seen anything like it onscreen before, just like folk did when they read the story in ASpideyman issue 121/122.


Well, I am not sure WHY your arguing about it then. I guess you misunderstood that I am wanting the story told in the reboot, and told right.

But regardless, Raimi's verse should of given us a darker more realistic Spider-Man, especially when the Symbiote was broght in and with Raimi's roots in Horror.

And even IF the story is done in the reboot, there will STILL be some who will claim Webb is copying TDK (and RD's death), even though (AGAIN), it is Spider-Man's birthright.

[david icke]

I agree that they would of need to build Peter's and Gwen (or MJ in Raimi's verse I guess) relationship to have the death mean anything. I think they could of easily done that in 3 or more movies, WITHOUT making it ALL about ONE girl BS like Raimi did.

But I still think there would have to be about as much focus on the one relationship as there was in Raimi's movies for it to work and have the same kind of impact. Like if MJ had been more likeable and had gotten killed off in 3.



By that argument, I WANT TNGSD even more. Becasue it would have EVEN MORE impact than the RD death in TDK.

And the same argument (that RD was not a loved or developed character) could of EASILY been made for Gwen in Raimi's verse. He could of brought in Gwen (basically playing MJ's role from ASM, since MJ is basically playing Gwen's role from ASM) and then set her up to die in SM3 or SM4. (death of a not so well developed character). Not my first choice, but would of shown balls.

My point is more about doing the story right (Gwen and MJ) in the reboot. Folloing the ASM classic storylines for both closer.

Yeah, I would rather it was done right, I mean, I didn't like so much that they used the Brooklyn Bridge scenario in 1 when they weren't using it for the whole hog. I mean, they didn't even have so much of a battle between GG and SM there, when of course it is a perfect environment for such a thing, the Goblin having all the advantage of the open air, but Spidey still able to weave in and out of the structure. I would rather they at least have had a similar battle and she survived.
So that we could say, ok, they didn't want to go so dark right off, but at least we have something close, like the 90s animated version of turning point, which is much better I feel than that movie showdown.



We will have to agree to disagree here. I think it still took balls and a dark realistic approach to kill off RD in TDK. I think withouth that storyline, the whole movie would suffer greatly.

As Raimi's SM verse was REALLY starting to show strains of the same ole, damsal in distress, Hero saves her AGAIN BS. :down:

Yeah, I agree that it benefited the movie, but still, I don't think it was that ballsy a move, it was a move that spelled win all the way, you get some good character stuff out of Dent and BM from it, and no-one gives a crap about the 'invented for the movies Hollywood love interest that was an inconsistent character' who has just been removed, she wasn't that big a deal to the mythos.

Yeah, i know about the damsel in distress thing in the SM movies, I rankled at them too, once was fine, but no more.


Well, I am not sure WHY your arguing about it then. I guess you misunderstood that I am wanting the story told in the reboot, and told right.

lol, sorry, I didn't mean to 'argue' about it. I suppose the main things I disagreed with was that TDK one was a totally ballsy move, and that Raimi did not have the balls to go there.
If Raimi had absolute free reign and did not have to ask permission to do this and that, i think he would and could have delivered that kind of Spidey movie if he so desired.

But regardless, Raimi's verse should of given us a darker more realistic Spider-Man, especially when the Symbiote was broght in and with Raimi's roots in Horror.

Yeah, I am a fan of the first two ED movies, and can imagine what kind of movie he could have made given free reign. But, I think we were lucky to get what horror we did get, considering what kind of tone the studio would have wanted for the main, a mainstream superhero movie.
Who knows, maybe Sam would not have went there as much as you wish if given free reign, and kept the small kids in mind, but i think we would have got a little more at least even if he did.



And even IF the story is done in the reboot, there will STILL be some who will claim Webb is copying TDK (and RD's death), even though (AGAIN), it is Spider-Man's birthright.

I'm not so sure about that. When Watchmen was finally announced as being made, for sure this time, lots of folk were saying that the audience would be thinking it ripped off Heroes s1, as Heroes s1 took a lot from WM in regards to the big plot arching towards an engineered explosion in the city.
But, by the time it rolled around no-one said a peep about that.
By the time we get to the GS story being done on film(hopefully), RD death will be old news, and if TDOGS is done successfully, it's impact will not compare to the plot in TDK.

[TheSlag]

But I still think there would have to be about as much focus on the one relationship as there was in Raimi's movies for it to work and have the same kind of impact. Like if MJ had been more likeable and had gotten killed off in 3.

Funny, but there was not "as much" focus in ASM, where MJ had her storylines, Peter had his, Harry his, Norman his, etc... and most importantly, Spider-Man had his, and it worked brilliantly.




Yeah, I would rather it was done right, I mean, I didn't like so much that they used the Brooklyn Bridge scenario in 1 when they weren't using it for the whole hog. I mean, they didn't even have so much of a battle between GG and SM there, when of course it is a perfect environment for such a thing, the Goblin having all the advantage of the open air, but Spidey still able to weave in and out of the structure. I would rather they at least have had a similar battle and she survived.
So that we could say, ok, they didn't want to go so dark right off, but at least we have something close, like the 90s animated version of turning point, which is much better I feel than that movie showdown.

I can agree with that, with one exception, I loved the final battle in SM1. Of course, the ultimate would of been Gwen's death along with that final battle, or even a more intense final battle after GG kills the girl Peter loves,

I can only hold out hope for the reboot (meaning all 3 movies or however many we get). I do not want, nor expect the Goblin in the first, or Gwen's death in the first.




Yeah, I agree that it benefited the movie, but still, I don't think it was that ballsy a move, it was a move that spelled win all the way, you get some good character stuff out of Dent and BM from it, and no-one gives a crap about the 'invented for the movies Hollywood love interest that was an inconsistent character' who has just been removed, she wasn't that big a deal to the mythos.

Yeah, i know about the damsel in distress thing in the SM movies, I rankled at them too, once was fine, but no more.

I think that same "spelling" could of been applied to Raimi's Spider-Man. :cwink: And it would of broken the DID (Damsal in Distress) repetitvieness.. at least the saving of "said damsal".



lol, sorry, I didn't mean to 'argue' about it. I suppose the main things I disagreed with was that TDK one was a totally ballsy move, and that Raimi did not have the balls to go there.
If Raimi had absolute free reign and did not have to ask permission to do this and that, i think he would and could have delivered that kind of Spidey movie if he so desired.

No problem. And contructive arguing is always good in my book. Like I have seen your point that RD was not as beloved a character as say, Gwen (even in Raimi's version of Spider-Man).

I thought I said Sam and Sony did not have the balls. If I did not, I meant to. I blame both. Not just Raimi.


Yeah, I am a fan of the first two ED movies, and can imagine what kind of movie he could have made given free reign. But, I think we were lucky to get what horror we did get, considering what kind of tone the studio would have wanted for the main, a mainstream superhero movie.
Who knows, maybe Sam would not have went there as much as you wish if given free reign, and kept the small kids in mind, but i think we would have got a little more at least even if he did.

I thought the first ED was ok (not great, not bad), the other 2 I have only seen bits and pieces. I was talking about some of Raimi's more serious approaches to horror, as opposed to his cheesefest approach.

I am not a fan of Raimi's cheese in ED, and DEFINITELY not a fan of it in Spider-Man. Now granted, there was NO WHERE near the cheese in Spider-Man that there was in the ED trilogy.

If Sam had free reign, yes, maybe we would of gotten more realism or more darkness (with the symbiote), but perhaps we would of gotten MORE cheese too. Perhaps Sony, reigned him in on that front. Who knows for sure? I doubt we will ever know exactly how much each party is to blame.

Again, I find SM1-3 very enjoyable, but I just see sooo much wasted potnential.




I'm not so sure about that. When Watchmen was finally announced as being made, for sure this time, lots of folk were saying that the audience would be thinking it ripped off Heroes s1, as Heroes s1 took a lot from WM in regards to the big plot arching towards an engineered explosion in the city.
But, by the time it rolled around no-one said a peep about that.
By the time we get to the GS story being done on film(hopefully), RD death will be old news, and if TDOGS is done successfully, it's impact will not compare to the plot in TDK.

I can DEFINITELY agree/hope your right on this point. :up:

But, You KNOW how competitive some Batman and Spider-Man fans can be. But, IF we get it done right, I couldn't care less IF some Bat fans claim ripoff. We can just point them to ASM 121 and 122 arcs.

[ModestMr.Green]

I see a lot of people casting Gwen Stacy for the reboot around here. Heck, I've even done it a few times myself. But really, what I want to know is, why do you lot think they should even bother with Gwen?

Sure, she's a famous character, and her role is a big part of the Spider-Man story, but why Gwen? What's important about Gwen is that she shows Peter how dangerous and close to home his line of work can be. If Raimi's trilogy has shown us anything, it's that the Goblin's legacy (or elements of it) can be carried over to another character. Heck, even Spider-Man: The Animated Series and (arguably) Ultimate Spider-Man did a character transfer.

MJ is Peter's iconic girl. Her lines are famous, her appearance is famous, her build-up is famous. Gwen's story is also famous, but only because it was such a shock. Nobody expected it. There is no sense in putting her in the reboot. The fandom would know she's going to die. A Google search or a magazine article would likely bring up her death. No surprises. Gwen would simply exist to die.

So really, why bother with Gwen?

[Hobgoblin]

Because I want the tragedy of her death. It makes the films so much more interesting. None of this "MJ gets kidnapped for the umpteenth time and Spidey saves her" BS. I want Peter to screw up when it counts, and for him to screw up big time.

[OctaviusINC]

she's a famous character, and her role is a big part of the Spider-Man story,

You just answered your own question.

And like Hobby said, her death throws a wrench into the old "damsel in distress" situation that the original SM trilogy did so much.

It's like asking, "Why do we need Uncle Ben?"

Because that's how it is. People complain when the film is like the comics. People complain when it's not like the comics.

Who cares if the all knowing "fandom" knows if she dies. The fandom know everything anyway. Unless someone changes the film from the comics. But then everyone just whines.

[sauronthegreat]

There is no sense in putting her in the reboot. The fandom would know she's going to die. A Google search or a magazine article would likely bring up her death. No surprises. Gwen would simply exist to die.

So really, why bother with Gwen?

'No sense'?

How there is no sense in putting a crucial character that is supposed to die in the future? Maybe after Uncle Ben even the most crucial and important character. Not only the one that defined Peter Parker and Spider-Man, but also his greatest nemesis - the Green Goblin. You see, that's where Raimi has failed from the beginning. He just scratch out one of the most important aspects of Spider-Man history and that's how his stories became faint and cheap.

The importance of a character is not judged by his/hers time on screen, but by the way his/hers time is portrayed. It can also be implied in real life... you don't judge people by their years of life, but by the deeds they do while they are alive.

It's like saying -''why even bother with Boromir in 'The Lord of the Rings' when everyone knows that he will die by the end of the first book/film?''; or "why putting Theoden there and develop his character for two films when everyone could google-search that he will met his demise at the Battle of Pellenor Fields."

Raimi did nothing unexpected also... for three films MJ got kidnapped and we all knew she would survive that final battle, by the third film we all knew that again she will get kidnapped in the first place, not to mention that she would survive it. That's why Raimi's characters were empty shells, who only bore the names of the characters we knew from the comics and nothing more. They didn't develop, they didn't made the story of the films, but were only there to fill the time needed between the lame plot about a villain becoming a villain, Peter learning a lesson, but remaining the douche he always was; and of course kidnapping and saving of MJ as a great climactic finale.

This time I personally am expecting characters which would represent a meaning to the story; which would evolve and develop, and not just themselves, but also help develop other characters, and in doing so creating a rich world that exists for its own... not just an empty shell of a world we got with Raimi's vision. That's why I think Gwen's character is essential, as a beacon and a turning point for the protagonist. So that the whole point of Spider-Man to not be 'just a story that's all about a girl' crap.

[TheSlag]

Why? WHY?!?!?!?!?!!? :cwink:

Back in the prehistoric days, readers had no advance knowledge of what was going to be in an issue or, really, when a comic was even going to come out! Many times, fans would be searching the stands for books that had been cancelled without them knowing. When Gwen Stacey died in issue #121 of The Amazing Spider-Man, it was a genuine shock to many people because you didn't expect a major character to really die. It just wasn't done! Her death had the same shock value to many readers as a death in the real world. It was sudden, unexpected and unfair. Gwen was one of the most loved characters in the Spider-Man universe and certainly a strong contender for "hottest babe" in comics. Nearly every comic geek had hopes of growing up and finding a woman like Gwen. Her unexpected death introduced a new feeling of uncertainty in comic books. Suddenly, death was a reality. Not necessarily Spider-Man, but certainly every other character in his book was now a potential target. Everyone was fair game and no one was safe.

http://www.popmatters.com/comics/spiderman-blue.shtml

The framing device for the incredibly beautiful and emotionally moving 6-issue limited series Spider-Man: Blue has Peter Parker in the attic of his Aunt May's home, where he is going through some of his old things. He uses an old tape recorder to record memories of his first true love, the late Gwen Stacy. Peter speaks as if talking directly to Gwen, recounting events from the time they had together. Dialogue from Spider-Man: Blue #6, Marvel Entertainment Group: New York City (December 2002), pages 20-22; written by Jeph Loeb, illustrated by Tim Sale; reprinted in Spider-Man: Blue hardcover collection (2003).
[Peter sits on the floor of the attic, recording his conversation with the late Gwen Stacy into a tape recorder.]

PETER PARKER: For years I've tried to make some sense of your death. Something -- anything -- that I could call "good" that came after all that . . . bad . . . And all the time I've been sitting up here talking to you, I remembered something I don't think I've told anyone.

The night of your funeral. MJ [i.e., Mary Jane Watson] came to see me at the apartment. I was . . . putting it mildly . . . rude to her. I just wasn't up for that "Life is a party and MJ is the cake" thing. But, something happened that night. I think now your death was MJ's wake-up call -- that we weren't going to live forever and the party was going to end. Gwen, I don't think Mary Jane Watson could've had a serious relationship with me until she realized how much we all lost with you gone. She would later become my wife. I had to learn to love again, and she taught me how--

MARY JANE WATSON: Peter . . .?

[Peter looks up and sees his wife, Mary Jane Watson, standing at the top of the stairs.]

MARY JANE WATSON: Hi.

PETER PARKER: MJ . . .? How . . . How long have you been listening . . .?

MARY JANE WATSON: Long enough.

PETER PARKER: I . . . I'm sorry, MJ. I didn't mean for you to hear . . .

MARY JANE WATSON: It's all right. I just came up to make sure you were okay.

PETER PARKER: Yeah. I'm okay . . .

MARY JANE WATSON: Will you do me a favor, Peter? Say "Hello" for me and -- tell Gwen I miss her to . . .

[Mary Jane leaves. The tape recorder continues to record, recording only silence for some moments.]

PETER PARKER: That was . . . MJ, Gwen. She says, "Hi" and I . . . And . . . um . . . I should get going.

I guess when I try and sum up how I get -- how I feel sometimes around this time of year [Valentines Day] . . . I feel blue. Not like I've been dipped in with the Tidy Bowl Man, but like in music, in jazz . . . in feeling blue. And I long for a time when a girl I knew with an incredible smile and so much good in her heart made me think . . . life can be great.

[KLIK, as Peter turns off the tape recorder.]

[Venom'sDad]

So really, why bother with Gwen?

Simply because, Peter grew up after Gwen's death. The world became different for him; therefore, he became more mature about who he is, who he has become, and the path he chose to follow as a somewhat of a protector of the citizens of NYC. He became a man; more so, then when Uncle Ben died.

Gwen's death changed his life forever.

[some guy]

Putting Gwen Stacy in the movie doesn't necessarily have to be predictable. While we know her ultimate fate in the comics, we've had three non-comic versions of Gwen who have remained alive. So there would still be the question of "will they really kill her off this time or won't they?" There was someone here who suggested a sort of alternate scene to throw people off. They could perhaps put a scene in the trailer where it looks as if she's saved, then it turns out differently in the actual film. In fact, in the original story, it did seem at first like Spidey saved her, then it turns out that he didn't.

[©KAW]

'No sense'?

How there is no sense in putting a crucial character that is supposed to die in the future? Maybe after Uncle Ben even the most crucial and important character. Not only the one that defined Peter Parker and Spider-Man, but also his greatest nemesis - the Green Goblin. You see, that's where Raimi has failed from the beginning. He just scratch out one of the most important aspects of Spider-Man history and that's how his stories became faint and cheap.

The importance of a character is not judged by his/hers time on screen, but by the way his/hers time is portrayed. It can also be implied in real life... you don't judge people by their years of life, but by the deeds they do while they are alive.

It's like saying -''why even bother with Boromir in 'The Lord of the Rings' when everyone knows that he will die by the end of the first book/film?''; or "why putting Theoden there and develop his character for two films when everyone could google-search that he will met his demise at the Battle of Pellenor Fields."

Raimi did nothing unexpected also... for three films MJ got kidnapped and we all knew she would survive that final battle, by the third film we all knew that again she will get kidnapped in the first place, not to mention that she would survive it. That's why Raimi's characters were empty shells, who only bore the names of the characters we knew from the comics and nothing more. They didn't develop, they didn't made the story of the films, but were only there to fill the time needed between the lame plot about a villain becoming a villain, Peter learning a lesson, but remaining the douche he always was; and of course kidnapping and saving of MJ as a great climactic finale.

This time I personally am expecting characters which would represent a meaning to the story; which would evolve and develop, and not just themselves, but also help develop other characters, and in doing so creating a rich world that exists for its own... not just an empty shell of a world we got with Raimi's vision. That's why I think Gwen's character is essential, as a beacon and a turning point for the protagonist. So that the whole point of Spider-Man to not be 'just a story that's all about a girl' crap.
Well said.

It's great to see those who have a much broader vision for Spider-Man on the big screen. I don't know what to expect from the new director, but your words are the things that he needs to know.

Just think about it, all that is said here was about to come true, with David Fincher at the helm. He wanted to start the story of Spidey with the night Gwen died. The world would have seen why Spider-Man is such a great character, and the spark would have been a character driven film (more than just a cheap looking CGI fest), that would have set him apart from the thick of mediocrity. And it would have happened before The Dark Knight decided to borrow from greatness.

But alas...Sony chose cheese over substance...such a shame.

[sauronthegreat]

Well said.

It's great to see those who have a much broader vision for Spider-Man on the big screen. I don't know what to expect from the new director, but your words are the things that he needs to know.

Just think about it, all that is said here was about to come true, with David Fincher at the helm. He wanted to start the story of Spidey with the night Gwen died. The world would have seen why Spider-Man is such a great character, and the spark would have been a character driven film (more than just a cheap looking CGI fest), that would have set him apart from the thick of mediocrity. And it would have happened before The Dark Knight decided to borrow from greatness.

But alas...Sony chose cheese over substance...such as shame.

:applaud

And that cheese reached it's highest point with the "NY Loves Spider-Man" parade, while the substance of the story was best served in the "let's make alliance" scene between Venom and Sandman. When I was watching that I felt ashamed for the whole movie making industry and all the money that was spent on that project.

One of the key things that makes me positive and optimistic about the new film is that it will not have that budget for them to think about grandiose things from the beginning. Let's make a good start for a franchise that is to last more than this previous 'twilight zone'. Let's just establish the characters, let's just establish THE Spider-Man (because even after three films we don't know the real JJJ, the real Gwen, not to mention MJ and Peter... and most important we never met Spider-Man!!!)

I can't imagine what David Fincher would have done with the same resources from the start, and I don't want to, because it would only make me sad. But what is done is done, and thank god it ended there where it ended. That trilogy, done by such a fan will exist for it's fans. It will always be there to remind us of it's mistakes and it would be wise if the new team used it and learned from it and never repeat mistakes it made.

[©KAW]

When you see Spider-Man being given a parade in his honor, coupled by giving him the key to the city, you know the people behind the films knows very little about the character at heart.

[Anwar]

Well, in the movies it sort of made sense. I mean, Spidey is the only superpowered hero out there and saved the city from the Goblin and Doc Ock, plus Jameson wasn't taken seriously by most folk anyways.

This time around they can reference other non-masked heroes for Jameson to say stuff like "What's he got to hide?". Or just ignore the "NYC hates Spidey" thing, as long as they don't go to the opposite side and make him loved by EVERYONE.

Hell, even in the recent SSM cartoon Spidey isn't that badly regarded by NYC and it's made clear that Jameson's reputation isn't that great for continually being wrong about Spidey.

[©KAW]

Basically, he gave us Superman, instead of Spider-Man. There was way too much love for Spidey. :o

[david icke]

Yeah, when I saw the stuff about the parade in the trailers etc, I thought they would bring all that down through black suited Spidey doing the evil acts in public, but they missed out on that.
It would have been better for Spidey to have redeemed himself somewhat in the public's eyes through taking down Sandman and Venom, the crowd unsure of Spidey when he showed up at the end battle.
But, y'know what, the way it was, it worked anyway, he's the only superpowered guy in town who could handle that scene, and the crowd were relived he showed up to take of it.
Yeah, we got some more of the mistrusted Spidey in 1 and 2, but for the story of pride that 3 was, it suited this one Spidey story to have him held up by the city like a Superman.
So, for a one off Spider-man tale like that, it was fine, he was held up like that for a reason of story, not just to change everything about for the sake of it.
It's interesting how people here are focusing on that concious deviation from the norm, for the sake of that particular story, and trying to hold it up as the norm for the 3 movies, when it was very clearly shown that Spidey *was* mistrusted by some of the public in the first two movies.

I also find it interesting that folk would prefer Spider-man to be mis-represented as a generally dark character by David Fincher, just because they feel that would be taken more seriously by the public.

[©KAW]

I don't know, the particular scenes from SM1 and SM2, where New Yorkers were standing up to TWO of Spider-Man's A-List villains, was cringe worthy. Where's the fear of the villains for one thing, why didn't GG toss a freakin' bomb at those people throwing crap at him, killing most of them? Seriously, someone should give those New Yorkers costumes and they should form their own KICK-ASS type group of idiotic heroes.

Folks wanted David Fincher because he's a better filmmaker, has more solid character driven, well acted and smarter films. Most importantly, he was going to start the franchise out with the night Gwen Stacy died story (not half-ass it like Sammy Boy). It's a story with dark elements that comes directly from the comics, how would he be mis-representing Spider-Man when it comes from the comics? It's not Spidey who kills her, and villains are suppose to have some dark elements to them, unless you prefer your villains spouting nursery rhymes (Green Goblin) or claiming that they're not bad (Sandy)...or even saving the city (Doc Ock).

[david icke]

I don't know, the particular scenes from SM1 and SM2, where New Yorkers were standing up to TWO of Spider-Man's A-List villains, was cringe worthy. Where's the fear of the villains for one thing, why didn't GG toss a freakin' bomb at those people throwing crap at him, killing most of them? Seriously, someone should give those New Yorkers costumes and they should form their own KICK-ASS type group of idiotic heroes.

It's good to see the common folk stand up to the villans, despite their fear.
A carriage of kids had their lives at stake, what , you think folk are going to be too scared to at least try and attack the villan when there are a large bunch of them?
The 'New York' line was cheesey but the concept was fine, just as it was in Superman II when a large group of people tried to do something about the 3 villans.
Yeah, that would have been good to see the Goblin throw a bomb up there though, but I fail to see the problem with such a notion of ordinary people standing up for themselves, your argument fails to have much logic for me. Since the people are in a large group they are braver, and they naturally want to try and do something, to stand up for themselves and others in danger.


Folks wanted David Fincher because he's a better filmmaker, has more solid character driven, well acted and smarter films. Most importantly, he was going to start the franchise out with the night Gwen Stacy died story (not half-ass it like Sammy Boy).

'Half ass it'....lol.
They did very well to incorporate decades of stories into a single film. What they did not do well was to adapt kaw's own personal idea of what a spider-man movie should be, I agree with you that they were a little half assed on that concept.
From reading your ideas on what the Spider-man movies should have been, it is becoming more apparent to me that your ideas are unrealistic, picky, inconsistent with your own logic(eg less kiddy... but New Goblin has to wear a moinster mask! Has to be just like the character from the comics... but we should have had David Fincher's dark interpretation, focusing on the darkest episodes of Spidey's life, while also making him darker than the concept was originally in the whole series), and ridiculous(have a black S&M costume for 3, somehow that would be more alien looking).
So, your constant bashing of the Raimi interpretation as being 'wrong', with a 100% negative slant in your every post, is not surprising to me, your arguments always twist the facts to suit your own prejudice and are usually illogical and ill thought out.
just as this latest one is.
But, you did come up with one good idea, an extra pumpkin bomb throw by the goblin, congradulations.



It's a story with dark elements that comes directly from the comics, how would he be mis-representing Spider-Man when it comes from the comics? It's not Spidey who kills her, and villains are suppose to have some dark elements to them, unless you prefer your villains spouting nursery rhymes (Green Goblin) or claiming that they're not bad (Sandy)...or even saving the city (Doc Ock).

Because it is one solitary dark spot amongst many, many, bright and colourful stories. Frickin hell, it's the reason the story is still talked about 30plus years on. There are many SM stories that are just as good, and better, that are not discussed so much, the reason that one is discussed so long after the fact is because of it's exceptional darkness.
Fincher has said that when he discussed/pitched doing the films, he would have had the whole series and character treated in a far darker light than what they are already known for, so it's only logical he should take a story that is 'the exception to the rule', and try to pass that off as just the usual type of thing to happen to Spidey.



and ...Yeah, lol, the Goblin was spouting nursery rhymes all through that movie, omg, did you see that flick?! It was like MrFreeze in B&R, he didn't do anything scary or evil at all!! They had Willem Dafoe in it and all he did was sing nursery rhymes! He was pretty good at it, good enough even perhaps for Sesame St, but no way should the Green Goblin's character be defined by a constant use of nursery rhymes!

Doc Ock... he's supposed to be a villan, and all he did was save the city like a superhero, omg! Maybe they should have called the movie 'Marvel team Up', because him and Spidey were the exacto mundo same people apart from the clothes they were wearing, they both saved the city! Weak!

and no villan in the history of mankind has ever declared themselves misunderstood, innocent or consider themselves a good guy, what an idea! As if!

edit: Ok, I just got back from dimension hopping over to the parallel universe where David Fincher got to do his dark Spidey trilogy. I looked up a site not unlike this one, called 'comicbookheroescommotion', and there was a poster called @WAK bemoaning the fact that the Fincher films were far too grimdark and were essentailly Batman films in all but name, and cape, that these Spider-man movies should have had far more humour and lighthearted moments, like the original comics, and that it would have been far better to have given them over to 2nd choice Sam Raimi, as he was a fan of the books growing up, and had the experience of doing kinetic comicbook action in his movies that would have benefited Spider-man's physics, poses and all round action. This poster seemed to have a real bee in his bonnet about the Fincher movies, so maybe they were completely without merit, and this particular filmaker had nothing to offer the series at all. Hmm...

[©KAW]

That's another thing, SM1 and SM2 (a bits of SM3) are too much patterned after Superman 1-3. No more New Yorkers playing heroes, it's cheesy as hell, especially with cheesy dialogue and a cheesy looking Goblin.

No, you totally missed the point, what I liked most about the David Fincher's idea, is that it starts off with Gwen Stacy as Peter's first love interest, they way it was in the comics. Just because you start the series off with a story that has dark elements, doesn't mean part 2 and 3 have to be the same. There can even be light moments within the 'Gwen Stacy' story, as well, her death wouldn't have came until the end of the flick. Although, I would love for someone to give me a darker, complex and scary ass Norman/Green Goblin. No, what I want is QUALITY, when you watch a film like SE7EN, what sticks out is the director knowing how to tell a great story and bring the best out of his actors. There's nothing inconsistent with what I want, I want a great quality Spider-Man film. And I don't think that it's impossible to make, as I didn't think that about Batman after seeing Batman & Robin.

I happen to think the original black suit looks a hell of a lot better and cooler, than just dipping Spidey in black paint and calling it the alien costume (most of the time with no mask). Again, a quality director could have easily made the suit work--as Tim Burton did for Catwoman, The Wachowski Brothers did for Trinity and George Lucas did for Darth Vader. I'm just tired as hell of hearing excuses for Sam Raimi's short-comings as a director.

If you noticed, the Spider-Man films were so children-oriented that they couldn't even do the symbiote story right. Instead of telling a story that's naturally going to have dark elements, what's the one thing that people remember from Spider-Man 3...Peter Parker dancing like a buffoon in a jazz club. The way the Spider-Man films were set up, you couldn't tell a full story without cheesy ass moments that take you right out of the film. Why would a director constantly remove the mask of the hero, when he has a secret identity? This is what ruined the train sequence for me, I'm thinking why did these fools write Spidey bouncing around yet again, with his mask off. Raimi should have directed the Fantastic Four film, they don't wear mask, he would have loved that.

:confused: Did you just go Parallel Universe Hopping in another Dimension, seriously, WTF? :confused:

[david icke]

No, you totally missed the point, what I liked most about the David Fincher's idea, is that it starts off with Gwen Stacy as Peter's first love interest, they way it was in the comics. Just because you start the series off with a story that has dark elements, doesn't mean part 2 and 3 have to be the same. There can even be light moments within the 'Gwen Stacy' story, as well, her death wouldn't have came until the end of the flick. Although, I would love for someone to give me a darker, complex and scary ass Norman/Green Goblin. No, what I want is QUALITY, when you watch a film like SE7EN, what sticks out is the director knowing how to tell a great story and bring the best out of his actors. There's nothing inconsistent with what I want, I want a great quality Spider-Man film. And I don't think that it's impossible to make, as I didn't think that about Batman after seeing Batman & Robin.

No, I think you missed the point, Fincher has said he wanted to do darker films when it came to Spidey, he has actually said this. The whole series would have been like Batman if you made it that 'Seven' way he had in mind.
Are you really trying to say Raimi has not made any quality films? The first two Evil Dead movies are very well known for a reason.


I happen to think the original black suit looks a hell of a lot better and cooler, than just dipping Spidey in black paint and calling it the alien costume (most of the time with no mask). Again, a quality director could have easily made the suit work--as Tim Burton did for Catwoman, The Wachowski Brothers did for Trinity and George Lucas did for Darth Vader. I'm just tired as hell of hearing excuses for Sam Raimi's short-comings as a director.

I said this before, go find me an outfit that could look good onscreen that is like the one in the books, find me that magic alien material. You are very naive when it comes to costume making/comic to film adaptation a lot of the time kaw.
you say that the one in the test photo was the one they should have used, and then when i said it looked boring, you started saying they should have used some kind of 'shiny' material, examples of whoich you cited where really not suitable for that type of outfit.
So what is it? You were happy with that costume they made up for tests, or that you wanted that improved with some magic material that does not exist/you have yet to find to illustrate your point.

If you noticed, the Spider-Man films were so children-oriented that they couldn't even do the symbiote story right. Instead of telling a story that's naturally going to have dark elements, what's the one thing that people remember from Spider-Man 3...Peter Parker dancing like a buffoon in a jazz club. The way the Spider-Man films were set up, you couldn't tell a full story without cheesy ass moments that take you right out of the film. Why would a director constantly remove the mask of the hero, when he has a secret identity? This is what ruined the train sequence for me, I'm thinking why did these fools write Spidey bouncing around yet again, with his mask off. Raimi should have directed the Fantastic Four film, they don't wear mask, he would have loved that.

dude, if the mask being removed during the train scene ruined it for you, you have a somewhat childish and picky nature in regrds to these movies imo.
You have to remember that Spider-man is for kids as well, that is the audience he was created for. Yes, these movies could be done in such a way as to be more serious all the way through, but they had ample amounts of serious drama, all you do is highlight the worst moments and blow them up in your arguments, as if that is all they consist of.
edit: In fact, the movies are just about always full of seriously played drama, you act like they were drawn like the Adam West Batman show, the cheesey scenes were exceptions to the rule, and sometimes they actually worked and were funny.
But, when it comes to someone having the most hailed action sequence of any superhero movie ruined for him because the hero's mask is removed near the end of it, I just have to say to myself that the person is on another planet from myself when it comes to being reasonable about creative decisions, and that their picky nature will always get in the way of them having a good time.




:confused: Did you just go Parallel Universe Hopping in another Dimension, seriously, WTF? :confused:

Yeah, that guy over there was not satisfied with the Fincher movies, i wonder what things he would have hated about the Raimi movies, I don't think he will be ever be satisfied with any Spider-man movie released in his lifetime, or anyones.

anyway, apart from the Fincher thing, we are way off topic here, and are dancing around the same points we always do, so let's give it a rest. Reply if you want, but we've been here before.

[©KAW]

I would have killed to see David Fincher's Spider-Man films, if he actually said that. Although I don't think it's possible to turn Spider-Man into a 'Se7en' like film, there are characters (Aunt May, MJ, Gwen Stacy, Peter Parker, etc.) that are just not the dark type. Although, I would love to see someone put a complex, mature and even dark within his VILLAINS on screen.

What are you taking about, Tim Burton's Catwoman's outfit material is very close to the symbiote costume's look and material. Hell, I loved the material that the Spidey designer came up with for the original costume. Spidey is mostly CGI any way, Sony doesn't even allow stuntmen to stay on screen more than a minute, unfortunately.

I can't help it, Spider-Man's mask should not be off in public, especially when there's absolutely no reason for it. Every scene could have been executed just as well with his mask on. People are not expecting to see emotion on the face of a man who has a complete mask over his face. Hell, they could at least use the half ripped mask, or something. Yes, it took me out of the scene, as it would if Batman was going around without his mask. So did the New Yorkers standing up for Spidey and just how did that little boy get hold of Spider-Man's mask, was he hanging outside of the train waiting for a mask to fly by, lol???

Okay, let's just leave it at, you think Raimi films are of quality and I don't. Perhaps it's his juvenile and overly cheesy style, it's just not for me.

[TheSlag]

I also find it interesting that folk would prefer Spider-man to be mis-represented as a generally dark character by David Fincher, just because they feel that would be taken more seriously by the public.

I find it "interesting" that "folk" will not be able to distinguish between dark character and dark/serious storylines.

I also find it "interesting" that a lot of "folk" do not know, or do not care to have the "dark" storylines represented in the storylines.

I do not remember a lot of the comics "catering to the kiddos" like the movies have gone overboard doing. In fact, I found it just the opposite, the comic (storylines) were well written.. mature... serious ... dealing with dark/mature/realistic storylines and characters for the most part.

AND.. I want the movies to do the same.

[ModestMr.Green]

The inclusion of humour and that nursery rhyme you people harp on is not 'going overboard.'

[©KAW]

I suppose Peter dancing like Jim Carrey in THE MASK isn't going overboard either, eh?

[TheSlag]

The inclusion of humour and that nursery rhyme you people harp on is not 'going overboard.'

The "humour" should come from Spider-Man quips, NOT from Raimi's Relatives.

And as for the "nursery ryhmes"... there are BETTER ways to get the dark/demented nature of the Green Goblin or whatever villain across than that approach.

Look and compare GG to the Joker.. Night and Day, and most came from how the character was written/developed.

We (Spider-Man fans) deserve better.

[david icke]

I find it "interesting" that "folk" will not be able to distinguish between dark character and dark/serious storylines.

I also find it "interesting" that a lot of "folk" do not know, or do not care to have the "dark" storylines represented in the storylines.

I do not remember a lot of the comics "catering to the kiddos" like the movies have gone overboard doing. In fact, I found it just the opposite, the comic (storylines) were well written.. mature... serious ... dealing with dark/mature/realistic storylines and characters for the most part.

AND.. I want the movies to do the same.

and I find it very interesting that once again my meaning has been twisted to suit a poster who just wants to post something smartassian.

When did I say i wouldn't be interested in the Gwen Stacey storyline being used at some point? I would love it if you pointed that out.
What I said, and have said to you in previous discussions on the matter, is that it is not the type of story that they should start off the franchise with, neither should Spider-man be turned into a dark 'Seven' type Fincher series, that is what he wanted to do, that is what he has said, he wanted to do a dark spider-man series.

Yeah, use the Gwen Stacey story, but in a developed franchise that has been running for a while, 3 , 4 , 5 films down the line.

edit: Oh, and all those Spider-man books you grew up reading when you were a kid? Those were written for you, you were the prime target audience, yes, adults can enjoy them too, and did, they had good characterisation, and some dark emotions and situations in there, but they were also full of the goofy s*** as well, go back and look at them..Doc Ock marrying Aunt May...The Hypno-Hustler...the Rocket Racer....any number of villans and situations, they had spidey commenting himslef on the ridiculous situations in his life,...I'm not saying it's good to go overboard with goofy jokes/material etc, but you seem to be making out that the serious drama in the SM films were overshadowed by humour, and there was plenty of fun in those books too, it wasn't all dark and grim stuff.

I'm tempted to get a stopwatch and time all the drama up against the CHEESE, I'd guess cheese would measure out at about 3%(maybe even less) of the films, but y'know, don't let that stop you bang on and on about it as if we got a series of Adam West type spider-man movies.

Oh, and spidey quips, just wait til they start putting them in the movies, they will most probably make the tension of the action scenes into a McBain goof-fest. Some are good, most are throwaway. They will have the action set pieces set up in conjunction with the plot, and then have to sandwich in the quips, so they will be incredibly lucky to have any that fit, are genuinely funny, don't get old quick, are distinguishable from all the McBainisms prevalent in all action movies, and don't detract from the tension, it will be a fine balancing act, and I'm not surprised they did not go with so many in the 3 movies , as it's better to have him say nothing, than something crappy.

[david icke]

I suppose Peter dancing like Jim Carrey in THE MASK isn't going overboard either, eh?

Yeah, just as overboard as someone making out the entire series consisted of Adam West Batman CHEESE(I know how much you love that word so have capitalised it so you can take a big mousey bite), has one of the best superhero action sequences commited to film 'ruined' for him because his mask is removed at the end of it, lol, and focuses on a inconsequebtial moment with the Green Goblin spouting a nursery rhyme for all of 10secs, as if it represented the entire perfromance.

[david icke]

The "humour" should come from Spider-Man quips, NOT from Raimi's Relatives.

And as for the "nursery ryhmes"... there are BETTER ways to get the dark/demented nature of the Green Goblin or whatever villain across than that approach.

Look and compare GG to the Joker.. Night and Day, and most came from how the character was written/developed.

We (Spider-Man fans) deserve better.

Yeah, that 10sec moment with the Goblin really ruined the entire performance by Dafoe, let's focus on that tiny inconsequential negative and blow it out of proportion completely like some overly picky fan who has nothing better to do with his time.
Was it out of character? Did it ruin the entire performance? No, but let's get really picky anyway, let's forget about so much they got right.

Night and Day, lol, both characters were just like their comicbook counterparts, with some changes, some merely because of time constraints(Goblin), some to make the character more realistic so to be paltable for it's universe(Joker).
If you prefer Nolan's Joker so much to the Rami's Goblin, it's simply a case of you preferring the character, because, buddy, that is the Green Goblin in that movie, and you damn well know it.
edit: the Green Goblin has never had such a good story as 'the Killing Joke', maybe that made the difference when it came time to adapt.
I thought your arguments and opinions were consistent, but, of course you have to adapt them if you are going to come in a defend a poster such as Kaw, so all your talk in the past of how DaFoe's performance as the Goblin was great and that your only problem was with the outfit, that was all bs? Or is it this post that is bs?
Seems like one of them has to be, seems like you're pretty good at the old adapting yourself when it comes to your opinions and who you feel like backing up when their own weak-ass arguments run out of steam, lol.

[Ace of Knaves]

The first film should focus on Pete trying to win Gwen's affections and all that. Norman is just Harry's dad, no Goblin yet.

Norman becomes the Goblin in the second film. Then at the end of the second film is her death.

Then the third film is all about Spidey vs Green Goblin.

[Ajendo]

I think the problem is that, the cheese and the less favourable scenes in Raimi's movies are too overpowering and a massive distraction that completely takes the viewer out of what's going on as well as disrupting the consistency of the characters' behaviour and personalities.

When reading the comics as a kid even by today's standards the source material was better handled, concieved and executed than what was showcased in the movies and I personally believe it to be down to Raimi having a rather limited understanding of what spidey is all about and his skills as a movie-maker.

In short, I think the spidey movies were just too silly to be fully appreciated by certain people such as myself. As stated before, those silly moments regardless of how long they last are just too much of an adverse distraction that spoil the overall experience.

[david icke]

The first film should focus on Pete trying to win Gwen's affections and all that. Norman is just Harry's dad, no Goblin yet.

Norman becomes the Goblin in the second film. Then at the end of the second film is her death.

Then the third film is all about Spidey vs Green Goblin.

Ok, I could go for that kind of set up as long as it was not a very grim take throughout the movies like Fincher envisioned. I would leave the death until movie 3 though, just have Spidey give the Goblin one hell of a beating in 2, but the Goblin escapes and the cliffhanger is that the Goblin finds out his secret identity.
edit: So, the audience knows something major is going to happen next movie, not a surprise for cb fans, but GS's death could be for GA.
also, this way we get two 'normal' type Spidey movies established before we go into such dark territory, and we get the same sense of this universe being upturned with an unexpected plotline, as they got in the books, well, hopefully anyway.

Of course this really only leaves it open to one other super-villan in movie 1, if you want to do this story right though, other villans in movies 2 and 3 would be a necesary sacrifice, but worth it to get it done right.

edit: I might even leave the Goblin stuff for movies 3 and 4, with two other supervillans appearing in 1 and 2, to further the relationship between PP, NO and GS beforehand, and to further establish a working Spider-man universe before upsetting the balance with such a story as Gwen's death.

[Ajendo]

The first film should focus on Pete trying to win Gwen's affections and all that. Norman is just Harry's dad, no Goblin yet.

Norman becomes the Goblin in the second film. Then at the end of the second film is her death.

Then the third film is all about Spidey vs Green Goblin.

I'd prefer it if we didn't get any Goblins at least for the first 2 movies and I don't even want Norman to have that much of a focal role. There's more to spidey than Goblins. I think Webb should focus on why there's a reboot in the first place and take the movies in a different direction by exploring other areas of spidey's vast mythology. You know, something different.

[david icke]

I think the problem is that, the cheese and the less favourable scenes in Raimi's movies are too overpowering and a massive distraction that completely takes the viewer out of what's going on as well as disrupting the consistency of the characters' behaviour and personalities.

When reading the comics as a kid even by today's standards the source material was better handled, concieved and executed than what was showcased in the movies and I personally believe it to be down to Raimi having a rather limited understanding of what spidey is all about and his skills as a movie-maker.

In short, I think the spidey movies were just too silly to be fully appreciated by certain people such as myself. As stated before, those silly moments regardless of how long they last are just too much of an adverse distraction that spoil the overall experience.

His skills as a movie maker? His movie making skills are fine, I dare say there are very few people would have been able to get spidey down on film so well physically, Raimi was perfect for that. His skills are such that he was able to get an extremely low budget movie made to such effect that it became a worldwide phenomenon in horror circles.

As for how much he understands spidey, i think he gets him pretty well, as well as most cb writers, it's just that in movies, that are constrained by such things as time and money, it is far more difficult to get this universe down to the level of satisfaction that a monthly series of comics , with no time or budget constraints, can do. I mean, there is actually a very strict limit to how much spidey they can realise onscreen, never mind missing out on some cb conventions as think bubbles, which go a long way in the books to establishing a rapport between the audience and character.

and as for the cheese...this is mainly a Spider-man3 complaint i think you have....and no-one is debating that there were some right crappy decisions made in regards to that movie. but, there was still ample drama for the most part, and if you are irked to the point of dismissing the entire series, you are overreacting, someone is always going to find problems with an adaptation, no-one is going to make the perfect Spider-man movie you personally want, so get ready to watch some things you would have done differently when watching these movies. Just try not to let them overshadow what you did like, because you will just be cheating yourself out of enjoyment. But, if you are so picky as to have entire iconic sequences ruined for you because of a simple thing like mask removal, you will most probably never be satisfied in any significant way with any movie adaptation of your beloved material.

[Ajendo]

His skills as a movie maker? His movie making skills are fine, I dare say there are very few people would have been able to get spidey down on film so well physically, Raimi was perfect for that.

I disagree. I think Raimi is a mediocre film maker and his spidey films have a lot left to be desired. I suppose it's easy to praise or discredit his work on spider-man as he's the only director who'se made the films but to me, it's clear he set himself up with limited vision and introduced lame concepts and modeled his 3 movies on the first 3 superman films. The sum of all the movies' parts are glaring dissapointments. I believe that there are plenty of better directors out there who could have done/do a better job and I look forward to Webb's movies on the basis alone that, it's going to be a new and different take.

His skills are such that he was able to get an extremely low budget movie made to such effect that it became a worldwide phenomenon in horror circles.

Imo the evil dead movies are overrated but they're suitably fun movies. Raimi's not void of being able to do good work but, sure, he can do great stuff but imo the spidey movies don't fit that category. Raimi's just lucky he's the first spidey director and I doubt he would have made an epically horrid movie, none of his spidey movies are of such a standard but they're no way anything spectacular or special.

As for how much he understands spidey, i think he gets him pretty well, as well as most cb writers, it's just that in movies, that are constrained by such things as time and money, it is far more difficult to get this universe down to the level of satisfaction that a monthly series of comics , with no time or budget constraints, can do.

I disagree vehemently with this. Raimi's take on the characters were piss poor and it has nothing to do with screen time. Peter Parker gave the impression that he learned some sort of lesson each film but as a person, as a character he didn't change from when we first met him at the start of spider-man 1. MJ is one of the worst written characters in film history, Jameson was a joke, bordering the edge of being patheticness, don't get me started on Brock/Venom. The only charcter(s) who were worth their salt was Harry. Raimi coming up with these lame characters like Hoffman, overplaying tired jokes, mishmashing characters and telling poorly executed, predicatble stories was borderline embarrassing.

I don't care about the movies being perfect but what I expect, which isn't too much to ask for are better attempts at trying to interpret the source material. The cartoons, the games, hell even the comics have done better jobs at reinterpreting, making changes and taking liberties with the mythology. There are many movies that base their screenplays on a source material and do excellent jobs with their execution. Raimi's error was that, he was trying to reinvent the wheel. At first, I felt for Parker but then he just came off as heroically stupid and that's because Raimi felt that was the best way to portray the character. Also, SM2 infuriated me to no end, when MJ was the single factor in the world that served as his motivation. Tragic.

I mean, there is actually a very strict limit to how much spidey they can realise onscreen, never mind missing out on some cb conventions as think bubbles, which go a long way in the books to establishing a rapport between the audience and character.

So we should settle for completely different characters altogether that merely bare the names of these comic book figures, if we're lucky? Many people don't care for direct page lifts or months or years worth of mythology compressed into a 2hour movie. What we want are the characters as they are or changed for the better to be part of a compelling story that doesn't try to hide by lame jokes to distract the audience from seeing just how mediocre a representation these films are of material that's perpetuated the existence of these films being made in the first place.

and as for the cheese...this is mainly a Spider-man3 complaint i think you have....and no-one is debating that there were some right crappy decisions made in regards to that movie. but, there was still ample drama for the most part, and if you are irked to the point of dismissing the entire series, you are overreacting, you are always going to find problems, no-one is going to make the perfect Spider-man movie you personally want, so get ready to watch some things you would have done differently when watching these movies.

This is mainly a complaint for all 3 movies. The cheese is all too apparant and leaves an overbearing, long lasting impression that tarnishes the overall movie(s). As stated, I want changes, I have no problem with certain liberties being taken but not at the expense of what works or because changes want to be made for change's sake. I want to see real interactions of drama and not some sappy, silly-concieved and poorly executed, sleep-inducing dialogue scenes that are an embarrassment. Also, Raimi has underestimated the audience and treated us like fools and that's based on many of the comments he's made regarding "creative" decisions he's made, yet, other directors, post the release of his spidey films have done exactly what Raimi felt wouldn't work or the audience wouldn't accept and have proven Raimi simply doesn't know wtf he's talking about. I remember watching an interview with Matt Vaughn where he indirectly blasted Raimi. it was so refreshing to hear and proves just how reigned in so many people are when it comes to Raimi.
Again, Webb's movies could be just as bad or worse than Raimi's but the fact and hope is, that, the opportunity for an alternative take on the mythology is there and right now, that's all the optimism I and many others need for now.

[TheSlag]

and I find it very interesting that once again my meaning has been twisted to suit a poster who just wants to post something smartassian.

Smartassian?? LOL.. I am also fluent in Slagasian too. :cwink:

Umm.. take a breathe there buddy. Sheesh

When did I say i wouldn't be interested in the Gwen Stacey storyline being used at some point? I would love it if you pointed that out.
What I said, and have said to you in previous discussions on the matter, is that it is not the type of story that they should start off the franchise with, neither should Spider-man be turned into a dark 'Seven' type Fincher series, that is what he wanted to do, that is what he has said, he wanted to do a dark spider-man series.

Where did I say you "would not"?

I was simply replying to your "you folk" comment. It appears you and Kaw have a running discussion going on that I have not read (nor care to). I was simply replying to your "interesting" blanket "folk" comment.. which had no quote of other posts to expand on it.

As far as Fincher's take on SM, and how it would of been. I don't know, but it would have been interesting to see.

Yeah, use the Gwen Stacey story, but in a developed franchise that has been running for a while, 3 , 4 , 5 films down the line.

Totally agree, but that IS a darker storyline than what us "folks" :cwink: got in Raimi's verse.

edit: Oh, and all those Spider-man books you grew up reading when you were a kid? Those were written for you, you were the prime target audience, yes, adults can enjoy them too, and did, they had good characterisation, and some dark emotions and situations in there, but they were also full of the goofy s*** as well, go back and look at them..Doc Ock marrying Aunt May...The Hypno-Hustler...the Rocket Racer....any number of villans and situations, they had spidey commenting himslef on the ridiculous situations in his life,...I'm not saying it's good to go overboard with goofy jokes/material etc, but you seem to be making out that the serious drama in the SM films were overshadowed by humour, and there was plenty of fun in those books too, it wasn't all dark and grim stuff.

Hmm.. so you're saying those comics were written for Kiddos, but had mature/serious storylines, but the movies cannot?

And yes, the comics over the 40+ years has had some really stupid goofy oddball **** in them, no doubt. But over that span, you're bound to get some of that. I guess that is WHY those arcs/time period are NOT considered classics.

But WHY would you model a movie after THAT, as opposed to the classic arss?

I'm tempted to get a stopwatch and time all the drama up against the CHEESE, I'd guess cheese would measure out at about 3%(maybe even less) of the films, but y'know, don't let that stop you bang on and on about it as if we got a series of Adam West type spider-man movies.

Good idea, it might just open your eyes to the level of cheese in these. 3% or whatever % may be fine for you, but I would prefer ZERO % cheese myself. Of course, cheese vs. humor is 2 different things to me.

Oh, and spidey quips, just wait til they start putting them in the movies, they will most probably make the tension of the action scenes into a McBain goof-fest. Some are good, most are throwaway. They will have the action set pieces set up in conjunction with the plot, and then have to sandwich in the quips, so they will be incredibly lucky to have any that fit, are genuinely funny, don't get old quick, are distinguishable from all the McBainisms prevalent in all action movies, and don't detract from the tension, it will be a fine balancing act, and I'm not surprised they did not go with so many in the 3 movies , as it's better to have him say nothing, than something crappy.

I have NEVER been a fan of Quips at high drama moments. And as you say, ur putting (or trying) words in my mouth, or stating things I NEVER said. They should NOT have Spidey Quiping at key/serious moments.

But, the "funny" parts should NOT come from Raimi's relatives EITHER.

[TheSlag]

Yeah, that 10sec moment with the Goblin really ruined the entire performance by Dafoe, let's focus on that tiny inconsequential negative and blow it out of proportion completely like some overly picky fan who has nothing better to do with his time.
Was it out of character? Did it ruin the entire performance? No, but let's get really picky anyway, let's forget about so much they got right.

Night and Day, lol, both characters were just like their comicbook counterparts, with some changes, some merely because of time constraints(Goblin), some to make the character more realistic so to be paltable for it's universe(Joker).
If you prefer Nolan's Joker so much to the Rami's Goblin, it's simply a case of you preferring the character, because, buddy, that is the Green Goblin in that movie, and you damn well know it.
edit: the Green Goblin has never had such a good story as 'the Killing Joke', maybe that made the difference when it came time to adapt.
I thought your arguments and opinions were consistent, but, of course you have to adapt them if you are going to come in a defend a poster such as Kaw, so all your talk in the past of how DaFoe's performance as the Goblin was great and that your only problem was with the outfit, that was all bs? Or is it this post that is bs?
Seems like one of them has to be, seems like you're pretty good at the old adapting yourself when it comes to your opinions and who you feel like backing up when their own weak-ass arguments run out of steam, lol.

LOL.. wow. Kaw is REALLY getting to you. I may need to go back and read the posts to enjoy "da show".

How about option C.. Neither is BS. :whatever:

Or option C - you taking things out of contest. Dafoe was greatness as Osborn when the scenes were written well. Like with the "heart Osborn, the Heart" scene, where it showed off his ebbing madness.

But in scenes WHERE he was NOT written well (i.e. the Itsy Bitsy Spider.. or the Hero Falls speech after kidnapping Spidey) were NOT greatness and took away from a great performance.

And we DID NOT get any real Goblin Mind games in SM1, like we should of once Norman discovers Peter's identity.

And we DID NOT get the Goblin's greatest storyline (the Night Gwen Stacy Died) either.

So, actor = Greatness... how character was written = So So

COSTUME = TOTAL SUCKO :cwink:

Clear enough now.. "Buddy"?

[david icke]

Ok, Slag, I went off on one a bit there i admit, lol, so thanks for that breath advice back there, i have now taken one and have taken all the cotton buds and wool out of my ears, nose and mouth...

Re: the goofyness, humour in Spidey comics...ok i highlighted some real goofballs back there, but there is a tone to the books that is humourous, so you can have a plotline where he gets his costume from a fancy dress shop, and it keeps coming apart, and gets shrunk in the water, and it fits, and is funny, and classic. you couldn't have that in 'Batman', and not just because Alfred is always there with the sewing machine/rubber sculpting mold-it kit.

Yeah, I love Fight club and Seven, and would love to see his SM movies, but he would not have treated the material right, doing it the way he wanted, Spider-man is not a dark avenger.
I was saying on the last page how I would do the Goblin/Gwen story...establish the movie universe first with some Spidey movies like the books, humourous, everyday guy who becomes superhero with attendant problems, top class soap opera etc...then upend that whole universe with the death of Gwen in movie 3 or 4, *that* would be revolutionary, like the original book. Far more revolutionary than doing it in the Batman series , which started off dark, or in a Fincher SM series that was dark toned from the outset.

[david icke]

I disagree. I think Raimi is a mediocre film maker and his spidey films have a lot left to be desired. I suppose it's easy to praise or discredit his work on spider-man as he's the only director who'se made the films but to me, it's clear he set himself up with limited vision and introduced lame concepts and modeled his 3 movies on the first 3 superman films. The sum of all the movies' parts are glaring dissapointments. I believe that there are plenty of better directors out there who could have done/do a better job and I look forward to Webb's movies on the basis alone that, it's going to be a new and different take.

Personally, i think the superman thing is coincidental, there were different writers on each movie.



Imo the evil dead movies are overrated but they're suitably fun movies. Raimi's not void of being able to do good work but, sure, he can do great stuff but imo the spidey movies don't fit that category. Raimi's just lucky he's the first spidey director and I doubt he would have made an epically horrid movie, none of his spidey movies are of such a standard but they're no way anything spectacular or special.

I don't see why that is something to particularly 'laughmyassoff' at, lmao, the first two Evil Dead movies are very highly regarded, and it's rare that a film director makes such an impact with such a low budget movie, it's not an achievement to be sniffed at. In your opinion, they are overated, that's fine, but that does not negate from the fact that they work very well as a movies, and are considered 'special' by a great many people, that is a fact.



I disagree vehemently with this. Raimi's take on the characters were piss poor and it has nothing to do with screen time. Peter Parker gave the impression that he learned some sort of lesson each film but as a person, as a character he didn't change from when we first met him at the start of spider-man 1. MJ is one of the worst written characters in film history, Jameson was a joke, bordering the edge of being patheticness, don't get me started on Brock/Venom. The only charcter(s) who were worth their salt was Harry. Raimi coming up with these lame characters like Hoffman, overplaying tired jokes, mishmashing characters and telling poorly executed, predicatble stories was borderline embarrassing.

Em, the character did go through changes, he wasn't the exact same by the end of 3 at all. this is a big myth perpetuated by folk who do not feel they got their own personal tastes met.

there are many cb/fantasy characters/adaptations you could say this about, Conan, Batman(before Nolan), The Hulk, V for Vendetta, The Punisher...but I don't think spider-man is one of them, yes, they are not ideal, but essentially the same character is there.

I don't care about the movies being perfect but what I expect, which isn't too much to ask for are better attempts at trying to interpret the source material. The cartoons, the games, hell even the comics have done better jobs at reinterpreting, making changes and taking liberties with the mythology. There are many movies that base their screenplays on a source material and do excellent jobs with their execution. Raimi's error was that, he was trying to reinvent the wheel. At first, I felt for Parker but then he just came off as heroically stupid and that's because Raimi felt that was the best way to portray the character. Also, SM2 infuriated me to no end, when MJ was the single factor in the world that served as his motivation. Tragic.

Yeah, with the whole Mj thing, y'know what? He was trying to be faithful to the books by condensing them into 3 movies, because the story in the books all eventually ended up at MJ and PP getting married, so he was trying to get that in.
But, the thing is, imo the marriage was a big mistake in the books, and this direction was a big mistake in the flicks, but he was faithful in going there, unfortunately.

and as for cartoons and other comics(I assume you mean Ultimate) adapting far better, em, that was my point, they have the advantage of not being time/budget compressed.
Computer games...are not comparable in this regard I feel.

Oh, and Pete can be heroically stupid in the books, with all that is going on in his life that is only natural sometimes.

edit: you could say not telling his girlfriend about the fact a super-villan who knew his secret id and was aware of her existence was gunning for him was a major **** up for one thing. Her life being in possible danger was more important than the possibility of her breaking up with him.


So we should settle for completely different characters altogether that merely bare the names of these comic book figures, if we're lucky? Many people don't care for direct page lifts or months or years worth of mythology compressed into a 2hour movie. What we want are the characters as they are or changed for the better to be part of a compelling story that doesn't try to hide by lame jokes to distract the audience from seeing just how mediocre a representation these films are of material that's perpetuated the existence of these films being made in the first place.



This is mainly a complaint for all 3 movies. The cheese is all too apparant and leaves an overbearing, long lasting impression that tarnishes the overall movie(s). As stated, I want changes, I have no problem with certain liberties being taken but not at the expense of what works or because changes want to be made for change's sake. I want to see real interactions of drama and not some sappy, silly-concieved and poorly executed, sleep-inducing dialogue scenes that are an embarrassment. Also, Raimi has underestimated the audience and treated us like fools and that's based on many of the comments he's made regarding "creative" decisions he's made, yet, other directors, post the release of his spidey films have done exactly what Raimi felt wouldn't work or the audience wouldn't accept and have proven Raimi simply doesn't know wtf he's talking about. I remember watching an interview with Matt Vaughn where he indirectly blasted Raimi. it was so refreshing to hear and proves just how reigned in so many people are when it comes to Raimi.
Again, Webb's movies could be just as bad or worse than Raimi's but the fact and hope is, that, the opportunity for an alternative take on the mythology is there and right now, that's all the optimism I and many others need for now.


Matthew Vaughn..the man who cast Vinnie Jones as Juggernaught. Many mistakes have been made in the annals of comicbook adaptations to the screen, and many are guilty of these crimes, lol.
I have not seen Kick-Ass yet, but I frickin' hate that moment in the tv spots when he breaks the fouth wall and nods to the audience when Red-Mist falls down on his ass. So I'm sure there will be just as many Kick-Ass fans a little miffed with some changes made as Spider-man ones, relatively speaking. But, the difference is , there was a direct interaction with the original writer/artist there, so it will be more faithful, a rarity in movie adaptations, and even then , that does not always guarantee a good adaptation.
and speaking of the creator of KA, Mark Miller said he felt McGuire was Ditko's PP made flesh in the first movie, and that is was very easy to be picky about the movie and ignore what he got right about it.
edit: there are varying opinons on these adaptations from respected sources, it's not so cut and dried as you make out.

[Ajendo]

Personally, i think the superman thing is coincidental, there were different writers on each movie.


Yeah with regards to the screenplay but Raimi steered the ship with the stories he wanted to tell, which inevitably resulted in a ship wreck by spider-man 3.


I don't see why that is something to particularly 'laughmyassoff' at, lmao, the first two Evil Dead movies are very highly regarded, and it's rare that a film director makes such an impact with such a low budget movie, it's not an achievement to be sniffed at. In your opinion, they are overated, that's fine, but that does not negate from the fact that they work very well as a movies, and are considered 'special' by a great many people, that is a fact.

I'm not dismissing the ED movies, I simply said that they were overrated. Also, there are many instances where low budget movies tend to fair well, purely on an artistic level because it forces the movie makers to be more creative and to maximise the talents of everyone involved. I've been calling for a lower budget since the 2nd spidey movie because a great spidey movie can do extremely well with a budget of $150million and that's assuming the right talent are involved.




Em, the character did go through changes, he wasn't the exact same by the end of 3 at all. this is a big myth perpetuated by folk who do not feel they got their own personal tastes met.

I don't think it's a myth at all. It's clear as day. Peter Parker had more character development in the entire Amazing fantasy issue #15 than he did in all 3 spidey movies. Peter was weak, still a social outcast, he had no backbone and lacked confidence as a person. In college, he still has lights shon in his eye and paperballs thrown at him. His voice, the way he talked had no confidence or conviction. Even when he was discussing ock's experiment over dinner, it just seemed false because Maguire's delivery and the horrible script never sold it. I find it alarming that it took a poor attempt at the symbiot bonding with peter to give peter a personality upgrade or change or what ever people want to call it.

there are many cb/fantasy characters/adaptations you could say this about, Conan, Batman(before Nolan), The Hulk, V for Vendetta, The Punisher...but I don't think spider-man is one of them, yes, they are not ideal, but essentially the same character is there.

A shallow, souless interpretation of the character, yes.


Yeah, with the whole Mj thing, y'know what? He was trying to be faithful to the books by condensing them into 3 movies, because the story in the books all eventually ended up at MJ and PP getting married, so he was trying to get that in.

I understand that but the journey he took peter on trying to get there was abysmall. Character interaction was limited. The character interaction we did get were poorly concieved and executed. The fact that Parker wasn't able to explore and expand his responsibilities further than a little beyond MJ is a joke. Throwing in Gwen and writing her in an absurd manner just because the character wasn't initially intended is even more obtuse. Peter's beloved Aunt May is in danger, even kidnapped and taken as a hostage, yet Peter's powers fluctuate. Peter finds out that MJ is taken away and Peter's powers return to full effect. There really is no excuse for shoddy writing and shoddy ideas when there are nearly 50 years of source material to at least steal ideas and concepts from.


But, the thing is, imo the marriage was a big mistake in the books, and this direction was a big mistake in the flicks, but he was faithful in going there, unfortunately.[/quote

I wouldn't have minded the marriage in the movies. The issue is the journey Raimi took to try and get there. There wasn't enough development that we saw in their relationship and as individual characters for a series of movies that were supposed to total at 6. Parker pining, crying and staring into space like a hapless wombat after his quest to be with the man-hopping MJ isn't good drama.

[quote]and as for cartoons and other comics(I assume you mean Ultimate) adapting far better, em, that was my point, they have the advantage of not being time/budget compressed.
Computer games...are not comparable in this regard I feel.

With regards to the comics, I was talking about both ultimate and the 616. 616 have made many changes and I for one do feel that computer games are comparable because they operate on the basis of a storyline they want to go with and use characters from the mythology. Time isn't the issue. All 3 spidey movies can be 2 hours long, have a set story worthy of interest and USE the characters from the mythology as opposed to the "shell-beings" Raimi used.

Oh, and Pete can be heroically stupid in the books, with all that is going on in his life that is only natural sometimes.

Of course but it's not something I would want to see consistently in every spidey movie, which is one of the reasons why his character essentially didn't change since spidey 1 because Raimi had Peter's character stuck in loser-geek mode. There are many other aspects to Peter's character and not once were they genuinely explored.



Matthew Vaughn..the man who cast Vinnie Jones as Juggernaught.

I didn't know Vaughn had anything to do with the casting of X3.


I have not seen Kick-Ass yet, but I frickin' hate that moment in the tv spots when he breaks the fouth wall and nods to the audience when Red-Mist falls down on his ass.

Kickass is a very good film and imo a superior enjoyable film than all 3 spidey movies. Vaughn incoporates some of the aspects Raimi chose to neglect or needlessly change because audiences allgedly wouldn't accept it, yet Vaugh does the exact opposite of Raimi's assinine logic and kickass is heralded and praised to no end by fans, audiences and critics alike.

So I'm sure there will be just as many Kick-Ass fans a little miffed with some changes made as Spider-man ones, relatively speaking. But, the difference is , there was a direct interaction with the original writer/artist there, so it will be more faithful, a rarity in movie adaptations, and even then , that does not always guarantee a good adaptation.
and speaking of the creator of KA, Mark Miller said he felt McGuire was Ditko's PP made flesh in the first movie, and that is was very easy to be picky about the movie and ignore what he got right about it.
edit: there are varying opinons on these adaptations from respected sources, it's not so cut and dried as you make out.

Cut and dried? Hardly. I'm merely stating my own opinion and as you've said, many respected sources have differing opinions. I couldn't care if Miller thinks Maguire in spidey 1 was the best thing since man discovered fire. Maguire's performance in spidey 1 was ok but the scripts and the stories in all 3 movies just didn't call for a more charismatic spider-man and charisma is a key characteristic of spider-man's that was sorely lacking.

[david icke]

Ok, i am not going to get into the muti quote thing anymore, but suffice to say in response to your points, there are things i do agree with you on...

a lot of the supporting characters, MJ, JJJ, left a lot to be desired, and some where just cameos essentially, Gwen, but in regards to PP, from what I understood he was in the early stages of his career in the movies, in SM1 he was just starting out, SM2 is set just 6 months after that, and in SM3 he was just starting to get into the swing of things, having his life go the way he wanted it to, and the story was about pride in that fact, and the fall that resulted, so maybe we would have got a more mature Pete in later movies, but still with some of those geeky qualities retained. He did grow as a character though in the movies, if not at the speed you desired, if you want to look at the time frame of the movies in comparison to the books, they are probably about the same in regards to character development.
It's the same as the Nolan Batman movies, they are also about Batman just starting out, look at what happenbs in TDK, Bm almost considers giving up because he doesn't know what to do about people being killed everyday because of the joker's threats, that's not the fully formed BM, we will probably see that guy in 3.
Unfortunately Raimi had the symbiote forced on him in SM3, so who knows how his original idea of a proud fall would have played out without the Venom/symbiote plotline, it is one of the big What Ifs of superhero movies now.
but, at the end of SM3 we do see a more sombre , serious Parker, and i wonder how that would have played into the next movie, him and Mj having been through the wars together now, wars with each other this time, that's the kind of thing that causes adults to mature and to know one another better.

So, in all, I think Pete could have been done better , but teh character is still there, and not *that* badly done at all.
as for Spider-man, yes, he is almost a guest star in his own movies as he is such an expensive sfx. I have my own ideal SM movie in my head too, one that involves spidey getting involved more with the drama, interrogating crooks for info, busting up bars etc, even getting into more incidents with the public like that elevator scene in 2(which was ok in that regard, not great), and I think McGuire is a good enough actor to have done that if it was required.
But yeah, superhero movies tend to have teh heroes saved for the action set pieces, and Spider-man is a weird one because he is supposed to be Pete's alter ego, he is supposed to act differently than Pete to some extent, so it's not like watching Logan when he is not Wolverine in action, the two are intertwined.
Probably the closest thing to what i would want to see with Spidey/Pete is with Batman/Bruce in TDK, we got a fair amount of scenes with Batman in conversation with good guys and thugs so that we got the seperate characeter from Bruce in the movie, and he was not jsut there for the action scenes.
Yeah,that is something i have always desired from the Spider-man movies, but i fear most filmakers will be restrained in this regard as they rely on the cgi for his appearances, and there is budget for this, but, hell surely they could have some more practical effects work done in regards to Spidey doing his thing and just interacting with the world more.

edit: and yeah, Matt Vaughn did some pre-production work on X-Men 3 before he jumped ship. He is a mate of Vinnie jones' as i understand, might have been a producer on one of his flicks. He also cast Kelsey Grammar i think.
and yeah, I am hoping I will feel the same way as you do about Kick-Ass, i just frickin hate those fourth wall breaking 'Naked Gun' type nods being put in the movie as the story was suppoosed to reflect to a degree what would ahppen if a kid really tried doing this. So, no matter how i feel about the rest of the movie, that will be a gripe of mine, and i am a big fan of the original books.

[Original Spawn]

What? Spider-man 2 is set 2 years after spider-man 1 and spider-man 3, well that we don´t know.

[david icke]

What? Spider-man 2 is set 2 years after spider-man 1 and spider-man 3, well that we don´t know.

Well, we know one thing for sure, your post is set 4 months after the conversation you just responded to. ;)

But, I don't know what makes you think it's set 2yrs after SM1, apart from the fact it was made 2yrs later. I am sure I read somewhere that it was 6months between events. do you really think it would take two years before Harry and Pete had that conversation about his relationship with Spider-man, do you think 2yrs would pass before MJ and PP had a talk that referenced the kiss at the end of SM1. do you think PP would be so surprised that MJ had a boyfriend 2 yrs after telling him she loved him?

6 months baby, 6 months. Half your calender, give it a flip, check it out, not that long.

I would guess it would be a similar gap between SM2 and 3.

[Original Spawn]

I saw somewhere more than once and i remember some talk in the film with them saying that it has been 2 YEARS SINCE BENS DEATH!!!!!!!!!!

[david icke]

I saw somewhere more than once and i remember some talk in the film with them saying that it has been 2 YEARS SINCE BENS DEATH!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, and when did Ben's death happen in SM1? When Pete was at high school, he then goes onto college in the same movie, so time passes in the first movie as well.
I am going to have a quick look for this '6 months' thing i read.
If I am wrong about that, it's still not two years between the movies, let's say a year passes during the events of SM1, as Pete makes the transition from high school to college, and then a year takes place between the very end of SM1 and SM2.

[NinjaCarm]

Ajendro, I agree completely with your assesment of cheese and sillyness and the dimisnishing of the overall authenticty and level of naturalism we should be treated with.

[david icke]

Original Spawn: i typed up this edit last night but it did not take, so....it does say there are 2 yrs between events uon the wiki page, but this is misleading, they are going by the Uncle Ben thing as well, it does not mean 2yrs took place between the end of 1 and start of 2...

in SM1 Pete goes from hs to college,...there is about 3 or 4 months that pass, the summer between that transition....then the first timw we see Pete talk of college, it appears he has been there and settled in, Doc Conners has fired him a couple of times, not to mention he got the job in the first place, so let's say a couple of months have passed of him attending college, at least, then we have the rest of the time spent on the movie, so , let's say there is about 8-12 months from Uncle Ben's death to the end of SM1, then there would be 1 yr between the end of 2 and start of 1.
I am not sure, but i think i may have been gettinbg mixed up with the time period between the end of Batman Begins and TDK which i think is 6 months. But, I didn't think it was 2yrs from the end of 1 to start of 2, that is a bit too long for how people are reacting at the start of 2 to the events of 1.

[david icke]

Ajendro, I agree completely with your assesment of cheese and sillyness and the dimisnishing of the overall authenticty and level of naturalism we should be treated with.

Is there any chance that one of you guys could point out these 'cheesey' scenes that , as ajendo puts it ' disrupt(es) the consistency of the characters' behaviour and personalities'

Because otherwise you are just being vague, and not backing up what you are saying. Someone might think you are being hyperbolic about a couple of humourous scenes in one of the movies, the third one, and speaking as if there are moments when the movies suddenly turn into the Batman tv show of teh 60s.

[NinjaCarm]

^

No I'm quite tired of explaining, it was a lot of unnatural and cheese throughout, period. You know when something feels unnatural - and was his whole trilogy, for the most part.

On forward to the reboot, full steam ahead.

[david icke]

^

No I'm quite tired of explaining, it was a lot of unnatural and cheese throughout, period. You know when something feels unnatural - and was his whole trilogy, for the most part.

On forward to the reboot, full steam ahead.

Ok, but let's be clear here, you're not backing up your critisicm in regards to 'the cheese' undermining the characters and drama, after all you completely agreed with everything ajendo said in regards to 'the cheese'.
and i'm not surprised you did not back up your 'cheese' crisicm, because this 'cheese' critisicm gets bandied about all too ofetn on these boards, and is completely blown out of proportion to the humourous scenes in the films.
the 'cheesies' as i will now be shorthandidly refering to them as, never actually cite scenes, or reasons for the undermining of characters or drama, they just keep banging on with the word 'cheese' like were the first men on the moon and have just discovered 'cheese' to bring back to Earth.
It's tiresome and on the whole without validity, and i have to thank you for backing that up with your avoidance of the issue in this post.

[Original Spawn]

I also saw that it takes place 2 years after spidey 1 but i´ll say something of 1 year and a half or 1 year but i don´t think that it was 6 months, also we can see the spider-man MTV series that toke place between that time.
I also think that raimi´s films weren´t that chessy, i liked 3 and 2 was awesome.

[NinjaCarm]

Ok, but let's be clear here, you're not backing up your critisicm in regards to 'the cheese' undermining the characters and drama, after all you completely agreed with everything ajendo said in regards to 'the cheese'.
and i'm not surprised you did not back up your 'cheese' crisicm, because this 'cheese' critisicm gets bandied about all too ofetn on these boards, and is completely blown out of proportion to the humourous scenes in the films.
the 'cheesies' as i will now be shorthandidly refering to them as, never actually cite scenes, or reasons for the undermining of characters or drama, they just keep banging on with the word 'cheese' like were the first men on the moon and have just discovered 'cheese' to bring back to Earth.
It's tiresome and on the whole without validity, and i have to thank you for backing that up with your avoidance of the issue in this post.


I have in the past. Done.

[david icke]

Well, whatever argument you came up with in the past, I would put it to you that about teh only scenes that are 'unnatural' due to cheesey humour, are the ones in the Daily Bugle, they are mostly played for laughs, but even then there is a hyper-reality to some of them, and even some reality now and again, as big characters like JJJ do exist in real life, holding court and being very demanding.
All the other realtionships, Harry/Norman, Pete/Norman, Pete/MJ, Pete/May and Ben, Pete/Harry, are played as serious drama, and none of that is undermined by the occasional veer into comedy. Whether you find that type of comedy cheesey or not, it has no bearing on the serious way people's interpersonal realtionships in the movies are handled.

[NinjaCarm]

Dude nothing on this earth or universe will ever convince me otherwise that Raimi and Sony waterdowned Spider-Man and made it cheesy.

[Young Superman]

Katie Cassidy for Gwen Stacy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Katie_Cassidy_2009.jpg

[TheSlag]

Well, whatever argument you came up with in the past, I would put it to you that about teh only scenes that are 'unnatural' due to cheesey humour, are the ones in the Daily Bugle, they are mostly played for laughs, but even then there is a hyper-reality to some of them, and even some reality now and again, as big characters like JJJ do exist in real life, holding court and being very demanding.
All the other realtionships, Harry/Norman, Pete/Norman, Pete/MJ, Pete/May and Ben, Pete/Harry, are played as serious drama, and none of that is undermined by the occasional veer into comedy. Whether you find that type of comedy cheesey or not, it has no bearing on the serious way people's interpersonal realtionships in the movies are handled.

When they have cheesy/stupid moments that take you out of the moment (especially a serious moment)... that is just wrong.

Like for example, the cut away from the final battle in SM3 to JJ and the girl with the cheezy kiddo camera.. and JJ tries to buy it from her... and the "FILM"S EXXXXTRA" *wink *wink...

Soooo frickin bad. :down:

It's moments like this that leave a very sour taste in my mouth to Raimi's version, no matter how "brief" they may be, it;s their placement at such key moments that is a total turnoff.. and total.. take you out of the moment.

[david icke]

When they have cheesy/stupid moments that take you out of the moment (especially a serious moment)... that is just wrong.

Like for example, the cut away from the final battle in SM3 to JJ and the girl with the cheezy kiddo camera.. and JJ tries to buy it from her... and the "FILM"S EXXXXTRA" *wink *wink...

Soooo frickin bad. :down:

It's moments like this that leave a very sour taste in my mouth to Raimi's version, no matter how "brief" they may be, it;s their placement at such key moments that is a total turnoff.. and total.. take you out of the moment.

Yeah, I know, they are not perfect Spider-man movies, but they are not as bad as some folk make them out to be, they are still composed mainly of serious drama.

[TheSlag]

Yeah, I know, they are not perfect Spider-man movies, but they are not as bad as some folk make them out to be, they are still composed mainly of serious drama.

"some folk"!?!?!.... "SOME FOLK"!?!?!?!?!?

*Slowly I turn, step by step.... :cwink: J/K

Yes, they are nowhere near bad IMO based just on the inapporiate servings of cheese (feel like I am ordering a pizza here), or more importantly the inappropriate timing of the delivery of said "cheese"... but.. they also had SOOOOOO MUCH MORE.... potential than they delivered.

And I guess we should NOT be surprised by the cheese either, given Raimi's track record in other films to "devliver... (hehe... delivered in 15 minutes (of the film) or your viewing is free... lol... Domino's and Raimi's Promise). lol