The Amazing Spider-Man How should the Death of Gwen Stacy be approached?

[SuperFerret]

The Goblin factor in her death is important as well. So is the Peter failing to save her part. But the rest of the details are all disposable, there doesn't need to be a bridge, she doesn't have to fall, etc. Emotions would be higher if she also doesn't know about Pete being Spidey and if there's unresolved issues between the two of them (as in the comics where Gwen blames Spidey for her father's death and is mad at Peter for being associated with Spider-Man).

 

[Dragon]

The main impact, in my eyes, of Gwen's death doesn't come from her being killed by the Goblin, or by Spider-Man failing to save her, or even with her being the first love interest killed like that, but from the ambiguity of whether or not Peter's actions caused her death and if he had done something different to save her that she might have lived.

The bridge is just details that can (and should be changed), the big picture is what matters overall. But that argument typically falls on deaf ears around here.

The bridge is the only reason there IS any ambiguity (And its BS ambiguity anyway). The reason Gwen supposedly dies is because the dynamics of the situtaion- Gwen falling from the bridge, Peter being able to do nothing other than fire the webline to snag her and the whiplash being fatal is why Gwen dies (supposedly). So changing the events kills the concept. I seriously don't see creatively bankrupt Hollywood coming up with a different scenario but with the same level of tragic circumstances.

ASM 121-122 are no question, classic comics. None of the multitude of 6 to 12 issue event arcs since have been as powerful. Which tells you something about Marvel's editorial policy, in that a TWO ISSUE arc stands head and shoulders above their endless events.

But-

While classic, the storyline is ultimately a major failure and on a very real level spelled out what went wrong with Spidey comics in general.

1. It failed in that the explanation of Gwen's death is bogus. As the movies so skillfully show, Spidey's webline is flexible. It has to be for him to swing from it as he does. Thus, there would not, could not have been any fatal whiplash. The line would have bungeed Gwen to a safe stop. If anything would have killed her, it would have been the high speed impact with the Goblin's flyer (I hate when people refer to it as a glider, since it's jet-propelled and doesn't glide). He slammed into her with a hard, sharp-edged metal device that was travelling so fast that bullet-dodging Spidey couldn't reach her in time. She'd have realistically benn cut in two.


2. Gwen's death was a gimmick. It was meant to spark sales (Which it didn't BTW. Sales dropped) by creating an atmosphere for fans that "anything can happen" in Spidey cmics. Only problem was, that there was nowhere else to go from there. Once you've killed the love of Peter's life, there's no one else you can kill off that would match that impact, short of killing Peter himself, which obviously would never happen. And, nothing DID happen after that. Every death of anyone close to Peter after Gwen was reversed, making death a meaningless plot point in Spidey's comics.

3. The story elevated the Green Goblin to number 1 status in Spidey's rogue's gallery. But by killing him, they couldn't reap the rewards of this elevation. And Marvel spent the following twenty years trying to create a villain that could fill the Goblin's shoes, failing miserably and then worsening matters by bringing the Goblin back.

4. It turned out to be a meaningless death. Sure, Peter mourned Gwen for a while. But his life wasn't changed by her death. Marvel didn't have the skill or stones to actually cause it to impact Peter's life. He didn't swear off serious relationships entirely. He didn't decide to only pursue relationships with superhuman women who could stand a chance of defending themselves. He didn't take a harder edge against villains, becomig willing to kill if necessary. He didn't decide that he'd give full disclosure of his secrets to any potential girlfriends, so they knew what they'd be getting into. And when Marvel unwisely brought Osborn back, Peter never sought justice for Gwen. So Gwen's death did nothing for Peter other than, as I'd said, made him cry for a little while.

5. In replacing Gwen with MJ, Marvel saddled Peter with a relationship problem., that they're still to this day struggling to fix, which is why they've resorted to deals with Satan to end Peter's marriage.
MJ is a great supporting character. But that's all she is. Stan Lee knew what he was doing in NOT bringing Peter and MJ together and having Perter connect with Gwen.
Gwen had stronger story potential. The trick wih the romantic lives of superheroes, is that the relationship has to be as interesting as their adventurous lives. With MJ being an actress and model, there's simply nothing to do. All you have is jealousy, her having a baby and beng a potential hostage.

With Gwen, ther was alot more story possiblitiies. Her being into science, her having a cop for a father, being a bit of a scrapper and have alot of unanswered questions about her family's past all made for alot more conflict. And then you still have the above concepts of jealousy, babies and hostage.

Gwen's death in the ovverall was a mistake. A great read, but a mistake nonetheless.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The main impact, in my eyes, of Gwen's death doesn't come from her being killed by the Goblin, or by Spider-Man failing to save her, or even with her being the first love interest killed like that, but from the ambiguity of whether or not Peter's actions caused her death and if he had done something different to save her that she might have lived.

The Dark Knight had all of that. Bruce's love died by the Joker's hands, Batman failed to save her, it was the first time we'd seen a love interest killed in a comic book movie (that I can think of, anyway) and he blamed himself. Been there, done that, let's move on. We don't need to see it again. Hell, the uninitiated will accuse them of ripping off TDK.

 

[aty990]

3. The story elevated the Green Goblin to number 1 status in Spidey's rogue's gallery. But by killing him, they couldn't reap the rewards of this elevation. And Marvel spent the following twenty years trying to create a villain that could fill the Goblin's shoes, failing miserably and then worsening matters by bringing the Goblin back.

They already had two villains to fill Goblin's shoes. Venom and Dr. Octopus.

 

[Crook]

The Dark Knight had all of that. Bruce's love died by the Joker's hands, Batman failed to save her, it was the first time we'd seen a love interest killed in a comic book movie (that I can think of, anyway) and he blamed himself. Been there, done that, let's move on. We don't need to see it again. Hell, the uninitiated will accuse them of ripping off TDK.

Problem is...no one cared. Not for the character, nor for any of the two actresses that played the part. As far as everyone is concerned, the whole "kill the beloved romantic lead" void has yet to be filled.

 

[aty990]

The Dark Knight had all of that. Bruce's love died by the Joker's hands, Batman failed to save her, it was the first time we'd seen a love interest killed in a comic book movie (that I can think of, anyway) and he blamed himself. Been there, done that, let's move on. We don't need to see it again. Hell, the uninitiated will accuse them of ripping off TDK.

I'm assuming that you mean entertainment-seekers, non-comic book fans, by, "uninitiated". Well if you want to get technical, if they are going to accuse them of ripping off The Dark Knight, then they'd might as well accuse Nolan or Frank Miller, or Bob Kane, etc. of ripping off every piece of literature that dealt with death, going all the way back to the first stories. All authors have copied a past story in one way or another without realizing such.

 

[Dragon]

They already had two villains to fill Goblin's shoes. Venom and Dr. Octopus.

I'm not saying Spidey didn't have great villains. I'm saying Marvel failed to capitalize. They're the ones who raised Osborn from the dead and have since made him the source of every problem in Peter's life.

 

[aty990]

I'm not saying Spidey didn't have great villains. I'm saying Marvel failed to capitalize. They're the ones who raised Osborn from the dead and have since made him the source of every problem in Peter's life.

No, I understand you. I think that we both agree that Norman should not have been the center of Peter's life when there had been other great villains that could had capitalized in better possible ways. Namely, Venom and Dr. Octopus. This is what I'd been saying.

 

[Michael Frost]

The Venom of the comics only came a while after Gwen died and he didn't really have that much relevance as a villain besides looking cool and being very dangerous in a fight mano-a-mano vs Spidey.

They've been trying to make amends and adding layers to Brock since then in the comics because of the really week development he had on his introduction (he basically came out of left field and went "rawr, i'm a villain and i hate you spider-man!"). Problem with retconning and making up stuff that wasn't there some years ago is, rule of thumb, it tends to do more harm to the characters than it actually benefits them. I really don't get why the hell would we care if Eddie got cancer. Specially the kind of cancer that's just there as a cheap device for some sympathy towards the character and then gets discarded quickly the moment they decide to bring him back to the action...

The Venom from the 90s cartoon was alot better in terms of him being an actual character not just a goo monster to sell toys. And whenever they have a chance to tell his origins again in new mediums (read movies and new animation shows) they're further solidifying him as a character. He still lacks his big move tho: actually doing something that affects Peter's life.

I for one think that either he or Ock should had killed Aunt May. It would had made them instantly jump to stardom (I dare say even more than Goblin).

 

[aty990]

I for one think that either he or Ock should had killed Aunt May. It would had made them instantly jump to stardom (I dare say even more than Goblin).

I agree and this would had opened the platinum age of comics.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The bridge is the only reason there IS any ambiguity (And its BS ambiguity anyway). The reason Gwen supposedly dies is because the dynamics of the situtaion- Gwen falling from the bridge, Peter being able to do nothing other than fire the webline to snag her and the whiplash being fatal is why Gwen dies (supposedly). So changing the events kills the concept. I seriously don't see creatively bankrupt Hollywood coming up with a different scenario but with the same level of tragic circumstances.

ASM 121-122 are no question, classic comics. None of the multitude of 6 to 12 issue event arcs since have been as powerful. Which tells you something about Marvel's editorial policy, in that a TWO ISSUE arc stands head and shoulders above their endless events.

But-

While classic, the storyline is ultimately a major failure and on a very real level spelled out what went wrong with Spidey comics in general.

1. It failed in that the explanation of Gwen's death is bogus. As the movies so skillfully show, Spidey's webline is flexible. It has to be for him to swing from it as he does. Thus, there would not, could not have been any fatal whiplash. The line would have bungeed Gwen to a safe stop. If anything would have killed her, it would have been the high speed impact with the Goblin's flyer (I hate when people refer to it as a glider, since it's jet-propelled and doesn't glide). He slammed into her with a hard, sharp-edged metal device that was travelling so fast that bullet-dodging Spidey couldn't reach her in time. She'd have realistically benn cut in two.


2. Gwen's death was a gimmick. It was meant to spark sales (Which it didn't BTW. Sales dropped) by creating an atmosphere for fans that "anything can happen" in Spidey cmics. Only problem was, that there was nowhere else to go from there. Once you've killed the love of Peter's life, there's no one else you can kill off that would match that impact, short of killing Peter himself, which obviously would never happen. And, nothing DID happen after that. Every death of anyone close to Peter after Gwen was reversed, making death a meaningless plot point in Spidey's comics.

3. The story elevated the Green Goblin to number 1 status in Spidey's rogue's gallery. But by killing him, they couldn't reap the rewards of this elevation. And Marvel spent the following twenty years trying to create a villain that could fill the Goblin's shoes, failing miserably and then worsening matters by bringing the Goblin back.

4. It turned out to be a meaningless death. Sure, Peter mourned Gwen for a while. But his life wasn't changed by her death. Marvel didn't have the skill or stones to actually cause it to impact Peter's life. He didn't swear off serious relationships entirely. He didn't decide to only pursue relationships with superhuman women who could stand a chance of defending themselves. He didn't take a harder edge against villains, becomig willing to kill if necessary. He didn't decide that he'd give full disclosure of his secrets to any potential girlfriends, so they knew what they'd be getting into. And when Marvel unwisely brought Osborn back, Peter never sought justice for Gwen. So Gwen's death did nothing for Peter other than, as I'd said, made him cry for a little while.

5. In replacing Gwen with MJ, Marvel saddled Peter with a relationship problem., that they're still to this day struggling to fix, which is why they've resorted to deals with Satan to end Peter's marriage.
MJ is a great supporting character. But that's all she is. Stan Lee knew what he was doing in NOT bringing Peter and MJ together and having Peter connect with Gwen.
Gwen had stronger story potential. The trick wih the romantic lives of superheroes, is that the relationship has to be as interesting as their adventurous lives. With MJ being an actress and model, there's simply nothing to do. All you have is jealousy, her having a baby and beng a potential hostage.

With Gwen, ther was alot more story possiblitiies. Her being into science, her having a cop for a father, being a bit of a scrapper and have alot of unanswered questions about her family's past all made for alot more conflict. And then you still have the above concepts of jealousy, babies and hostage.

Gwen's death in the ovverall was a mistake. A great read, but a mistake nonetheless.

I agree with your points but at the same time I think that if her death had impacted Peter in the manner that you suggested, if he had let it destroy who he was at the core and bring about the end of the "Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man", it would have been a far bigger mistake. It was great at the time, for we saw that villains can invade heroes' personal lives and noone is truly safe. But I wouldn't say there was truly NO impact, because it was so memorable. Fans may debate 'til Jesus returns that it shouldn't have been her, that Mary Jane was the mistake and Peter should have married Gwen, but it is what it is. The impact of that story nullifies the convoluted mess that was "Batman RIP", and makes publicity stunts like his public unmasking all the more absurd. Not to mention that in the wake of that, I find Venom's stalking and stunts so tremendously underwhelming. And bigger mistakes have resulted from it, like "Sins Past" and this weird "Earth X" story which revealed that Peter never wanted to marry MJ & have a kid with her after all.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Problem is...no one cared. Not for the character, nor for any of the two actresses that played the part. As far as everyone is concerned, the whole "kill the beloved romantic lead" void has yet to be filled.

And how much would audiences care about/connect with Gwen after 3 movies telling them that Mary Jane was the true love of Peter's life, and the one time they saw Gwen she was just a distraction? You don't think they'd be glad to just have her out of the way so Peter can get to MJ? Remember, folks, the reboot will NOT erase the previous trilogy from people's memories, especially given the expediency with which it's being launched.

 

[Dragon]

And how much would audiences care about/connect with Gwen after 3 movies telling them that Mary Jane was the true love of Peter's life, and the one time they saw Gwen she was just a distraction? You don't think they'd be glad to just have her out of the way so Peter can get to MJ? Remember, folks, the reboot will NOT erase the previous trilogy from people's memories, especially given the expediency with which it's being launched.

Very true. And/or if Gwen is presented over several films to be a great character and then she's killed off- even though it was shown in Spidey 1 that he could save MJ under the same circumstances it would result in the audience feeling like their chains were being yanked.

I think its safe to say that pretty much everyone championing Gwen's death being translated to film read it only after followiing Peter's relationship with MJ was well-established. So for them its just a really cool story. They didn't have the experieince of fans who had known and followed Gwen for years when she was killed off. Marvel got a ton of bad reaction at the time and sales dropped.

To the contrary of what's been said by some, it wasn't Gwen's destiny to be killed off. And presenting her as such in the films would only be a cheap trick and result in alienating the audience.

 

[Chris Wallace]

They already had two villains to fill Goblin's shoes. Venom and Dr. Octopus.

Venom has never, EVER come even remotely close to filling thee Goblin's shoes. In the 20+ years since he's been introduced he hasn't accamplished anything except scaring Spider-Man and causing writers to turn Spidey into a coward who runs and hides from an enemy, and makes deals with him, pricing his own safety over that of the numerous people Venom has killed in his demented rampages.

Very true. And/or if Gwen is presented over several films to be a great character and then she's killed off- even though it was shown in Spidey 1 that he could save MJ under the same circumstances it would result in the audience feeling like their chains were being yanked.

I think its safe to say that pretty much everyone championing Gwen's death being translated to film read it only after followiing Peter's relationship with MJ was well-established. So for them its just a really cool story. They didn't have the experieince of fans who had known and followed Gwen for years when she was killed off. Marvel got a ton of bad reaction at the time and sales dropped.

To the contrary of what's been said by some, it wasn't Gwen's destiny to be killed off. And presenting her as such in the films would only be a cheap trick and result in alienating the audience.

I would agree. I think fans would feel the same way if, as someone on this thread suggested, they flipped the script and killed MJ instead.
You touched on the fact that he was able to save MJ under the same circumstances. First off, he had the sense to go and get her rather than trying to snag her from above. No risk of the mistake we saw in Gwen's case. In the second movie, he found himself in a similar predicament with Ock and Aunt May, and he knew to create some slack in the web, let it stretch a little bit, then pull her up. Not snag her, pull it taut, and then be surprised when her body couldn't withstand the sudden jarring.
And to be fair, many of the people who are so gung-ho over the idea of Gwen's death being brought to the new films probably didn't even exist when it was first printed.

 

[Dragon]

Venom has never, EVER come even remotely close to filling thee Goblin's shoes. In the 20+ years since he's been introduced he hasn't accamplished anything except scaring Spider-Man and causing writers to turn Spidey into a coward who runs and hides from an enemy, and makes deals with him, pricing his own safety over that of the numerous people Venom has killed in his demented rampages.
I would agree. I think fans would feel the same way if, as someone on this thread suggested, they flipped the script and killed MJ instead.
You touched on the fact that he was able to save MJ under the same circumstances. First off, he had the sense to go and get her rather than trying to snag her from above. No risk of the mistake we saw in Gwen's case. In the second movie, he found himself in a similar predicament with Ock and Aunt May, and he knew to create some slack in the web, let it stretch a little bit, then pull her up. Not snag her, pull it taut, and then be surprised when her body couldn't withstand the sudden jarring.
And to be fair, many of the people who are so gung-ho over the idea of Gwen's death being brought to the new films probably didn't even exist when it was first printed.

Which is my point. They can distance themselves from the storyline. But if they had been following the comics when Gwen was being developed to be Peter's future wife, they'd have a different reaction to the death.

And this would be the experience of the movie audience if they were expected to sit through numerous films of development of Peter and Gwen's relationship only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them.

On the other hand, if they are given the expectation that Gwen would be killed and MJ to ultimately be The One, then they'd probably be unwilling to sit through numerous films made over a several years with Peter and Gwen's relationship being an act in futility with MJ waiting in the wings. They wouldn't be emotionally invested in the relationship. So really, no matter how you slice it, there's no point in doing this.

Now, to address your above point about Peter in the comics and his reaction to Gwen's death-

I'm not saying that he should have turned grim and gritty ala The Punisher. I'm saying that his reaction to Gwen's death should have been a realistic one. Sure, once Peter got some distance from her death, he'd have gone back to being wise-cracking Spidey. That wasn't just a quirky trait but a psychological device for him.

But at the same time, he'd realisitcally develop new attitudes., such as those I'd mentioned in terms of relationships and his dealing with criminals. As I'd said, he'd realistically be a bit gunshy in terms of putting another woman in harm's way. However in the comics he takes little time to begin pursuing a relationship with MJ, even though MJ is herself nearly killed when Harry assumes the Goblin identity.

And, as Spidey's villains began to escalate in their capacity to commit murder, having seen Gwen die, he'd realistically be more willing to use lethal force to stop them. Not killing without a second thought, but if he had to save someonehe'd be more inclined to put the likes of Venom or Carnage down than he was presented as being.

 

[Crook]

And how much would audiences care about/connect with Gwen after 3 movies telling them that Mary Jane was the true love of Peter's life, and the one time they saw Gwen she was just a distraction? You don't think they'd be glad to just have her out of the way so Peter can get to MJ? Remember, folks, the reboot will NOT erase the previous trilogy from people's memories, especially given the expediency with which it's being launched.

Well if you're going to play that game, we are talking about the same MJ that no one gave a s**t about either, yes? The one that has annoyed us (I don't mean just the fans) for 2 out of 3 films?

Gwen's baggage is FAR less demanding than MJ. We're almost a fresh slate with her, and I'd guarantee no one in the general populace who watched SM3 even remembers Gwen as a character.

If you don't think reboots can successfully change audience perception, then we're clearly not living in a world that was graced with Casino Royale and BB/TDK.

 

[Dragon]

Well if you're going to play that game, we are talking about the same MJ that no one gave a s**t about either, yes? The one that has annoyed us (I don't mean just the fans) for 2 out of 3 films?

Gwen's baggage is FAR less demanding than MJ. We're almost a fresh slate with her, and I'd guarantee no one in the general populace who watched SM3 even remembers Gwen as a character.

If you don't think reboots can successfully change audience perception, then we're clearly not living in a world that was graced with Casino Royale and BB/TDK.

Okay.

So you're suggesting that we build Gwen up as an endearing character, that the audience will appreaciate more than MJ.

So that she can be killed off.

In the same manner that Peter saved MJ in the first film, even though this time he somehow fails.

And Peter can start dating the girl we didn't like.

For what reason, exactly?

 

[Victarion]

I would let Venom do it this time, just to avoid similarities with the first movie and to add more to the charater. Goblin already has enough, with his personality disorder, son and bid to take overthe criminal underworld.

 

[Crook]

Okay.

So you're suggesting that we build Gwen up as an endearing character, that the audience will appreaciate more than MJ.

So that she can be killed off.

In the same manner that Peter saved MJ in the first film, even though this time he somehow fails.

You will note I clearly said beforehand that the creators should find a new way to execute that climactic moment, so as to avoid any comparisons with Raimi's scene. Similar to how Nolan put a twist on Dent's scarring.

And Peter can start dating the girl we didn't like.

...or Peter can start dating a girl that we do like. Why is the concept of a fresh slate so alien? What's with the obsession of carrying over baggage from the previous series? That defeats the purpose of making a reboot.

For what reason, exactly?

Is this rhetorical? You're seriously asking me why someone would build up a beloved character and then take them away at a moment's notice? Is it my understanding you don't get the point of throwing obstacles in the way of the title character?

 

[Dragon]

You will note I clearly said beforehand that the creators should find a new way to execute that climactic moment, so as to avoid any comparisons with Raimi's scene. Similar to how Nolan put a twist on Dent's scarring.

Bad comparison, since Dent's scarring and ultimately becoming Two-Face was a cheap after-thought that ruined the character.

...or Peter can start dating a girl that we do like. Why is the concept of a fresh slate so alien? What's with the obsession of carrying over baggage from the previous series? That defeats the purpose of making a reboot.

Because as Marvel has learned the hard way over the last 37 years, it isn't easy to catch lightning in a bottle. Churning out likeable girlfriends and formidable villains ain't that easy to do, and the public getting connected to the characters is a tough thing to achieve.

Is this rhetorical? You're seriously asking me why someone would build up a beloved character and then take them away at a moment's notice? Is it my understanding you don't get the point of throwing obstacles in the way of the title character?

So you consider the loss of a loved one "An obstacle"? Yeah, i guess Peter has had it easy thus far.

What you guys are not getting is that movies are not comics. They aren't put out monthly so that the writers have ample time to develop stories. It takes several years for the films to be made. So they can't tell the stories in the same way. Again, building Gwen up over several films- having the audience make an emotional investment in the character only to kill her off, so that we can have- ONE MOMENT OF PETER BEING SAD isn't worth it. Especially since by the next film they'll have Peter moving on to another relationship.

The saudience wants good films and aren't fixated on a single moment in Spidey's history as some of you are.

 

[Crook]

Bad comparison, since Dent's scarring and ultimately becoming Two-Face was a cheap after-thought that ruined the character.

Foregoing the fact that this isn't about your opinion, rather an example of doing something new with what's already been seen. You want a more grander case, then I'll reference the use of Joker in Nolan and Burton's films.

Because as Marvel has learned the hard way over the last 37 years, it isn't easy to catch lightning in a bottle. Churning out likeable girlfriends and formidable villains ain't that easy to do, and the public getting connected to the characters is a tough thing to achieve.

This has nothing to do with you churning out some BS conjecture that MJ will continue to be unlikable. Making something good isn't easy. Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. Should they not try anything at all because snapping your fingers and having a well-crafted product land on your lap is apparently not a reality?

So you consider the loss of a loved one "An obstacle"? Yeah, i guess Peter has had it easy thus far.

I don't know if you're being factitious or just being dense. Yes, loving a loved one is an obstacle. I would sincerely hope you're not going to try and contend this. I'm not even going to bother trying to figure out what you meant by that last sentence considering neither I nor the statement I made suggested it.

What you guys are not getting is that movies are not comics. They aren't put out monthly so that the writers have ample time to develop stories. It takes several years for the films to be made. So they can't tell the stories in the same way. Again, building Gwen up over several films- having the audience make an emotional investment in the character only to kill her off, so that we can have- ONE MOMENT OF PETER BEING SAD isn't worth it. Especially since by the next film they'll have Peter moving on to another relationship.

The saudience wants good films and aren't fixated on a single moment in Spidey's history as some of you are.

Kindly follow your own advice. All I see here is you projecting your own issues from the source material, onto a film that doesn't exist.

Explain to me where I indicated they needed to tell "the same story the same way". Explain to me why they can't modernize Gwen and her character arc like every damn hero to date has been given in cinema. Explain to me why they can't improve on the missteps the comics have taken. And finally, explain to me why a major loss in Peter's life has to be relegated to one scene and forgotten about in subsequent films.

Unless you can give me concrete answers to all of those questions, I've no clue as to your incessant b***hing on this matter.

 

[Dragon]

Foregoing the fact that this isn't about your opinion, rather an example of doing something new with what's already been seen. You want a more grander case, then I'll reference the use of Joker in Nolan and Burton's films.

Oh- sorry. That wasn't my opinion. It's a fact. Two-Face's handling in TDK denied him developing into his full potential as a character. He's one of the top memebers of Batman's rogues gallery. But not in TDK. He's a plot point. A silly excuse for the very contrived ending of Batman being hunted as a criminal. If Nolan took the time to show the independent thinkers of Gotham- including the criminals on the ferries, there's no reason to think that Gothm, a city used to corrupt officials would fall apart because of what happened to Dent.

And once again, bad example with the Joker. What you seem to be missing is that the Joker and Harvey are characters. Gwen's death is an EVENT.

This has nothing to do with you churning out some BS conjecture that MJ will continue to be unlikable. Making something good isn't easy. Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. Should they not try anything at all because snapping your fingers and having a well-crafted product land on your lap is apparently not a reality?

Yeah they can try something. Tell any of the hundreds of other compelling Spider-Man stories available, and maybe even think of some new ones.

And really? Is the difficulty of making something good obvious? It may be, but it doesn't solve the problem. You don't actually think that they TRIED to mke MJ unlikable, do you?

So, yeah, I'm saying that IF they managed to make Gwen work, then killing her just for effect would be pretty stupid. It didn't work in the comics and likely wouldn't work in the films.

In TDK Rachel wasn't even well established as Bruce's love. In fact it came off pretty weird in the film that he was even considering chucking Batman for a life with her. Not the same thing as Peter's loss of Gwen. Not even in the same solar system.

I don't know if you're being factitious or just being dense. Yes, loving a loved one is an obstacle. I would sincerely hope you're not going to try and contend this. I'm not even going to bother trying to figure out what you meant by that last sentence considering neither I nor the statement I made suggested it.

Talk about dense. NO. Losing a loved one IS NOT AN OBSTACLE. Losing a job is an obstacle. Flunking a college course is an obstacle. Being behind on the rent is an obstacle.

Losing a loved one prematurely is a life-impacting TRAGEDY. And- when you factor in as in Peter's case- that death being partially your fault, then you've got a whole friggin' lotta pain to carry with you for the rest of your days.

You see, another major difference between Gwen's death and that of Rqachel in TDK is that Rachel's death wasn't Bruce's fault. And it didn't happen due to his being Batman. Rachel was merely a pawn used by the Joker.

In Gwens's case, Peter is largely responsible, and not because of his choice of firing a webline. Peter put her on that bridge by not telling her that she was walking with a target on her back. Peter never gave Gwen the choice to walk away or accept the danger.

Now, because Gwen's death was merely a cheese-ball gimmick, this was never explored. Peter never owned up to his real guilt in her death.

Kindly follow your own advice. All I see here is you projecting your own issues from the source material, onto a film that doesn't exist.

I am following my own advice. I'm saying there's no need to tell this ONE story which involves massive repetition and rendering our hero to be an idiot, not to mention emotionally car-jacking the audience when there are a near-endless supply of potential stories to work with.

[qoute]Explain to me where I indicated they needed to tell "the same story the same way". Explain to me why they can't modernize Gwen and her character arc like every damn hero to date has been given in cinema. Explain to me why they can't improve on the missteps the comics have taken. And finally, explain to me why a major loss in Peter's life has to be relegated to one scene and forgotten about in subsequent films.

Unless you can give me concrete answers to all of those questions, I've no clue as to your incessant b***hing on this matter.[/QUOTE]

And you think this is a challenge?
(Dragon takes an Ace Ventura-esque inhale) Okay...

If the ultimate result is Gwen's death you're already telling the same story. ASMs 121-122 had no other underlying plot. It was directy and solely about how Gwen is killed because she's collateral damage in the Goblin's vendetta with Spider-Man. No suggestion that Gwen in some way created her own fate. No purpose (Until Sins Past ) in the Goblin killing her other than as a way to destroy Peter. A mere shift if details such as villain and manner of death are meaningless. It would also be a serious juggling act for Hollywood, who struggles with simple dialogue and simplr plot pstructuring to create a new set of events that match the tragic-irony of the comics.

Marvel's reasoning for the death were three-fold.

1. Gerry Conway hated Gwen (Much like Quesada doesn't like MJ) and at age 19 couldn't skillfully handle wirintg a long term love relationship.
2. To gnerate an atmosphere of suspense for the fans.
3. Some misguided idea the MJ would make a better girlfirnd.

These weren't very good reasons..
So again I ask YOU- What is the point in developing Gwen only to kill her?

To address your next point- Modernizing Gwen or her story are not the issue. (And let's don't bring up how other chracters have been modernized in films, since most superhero films haven't been very good). But again- you're talking about skillfully building a character only to result in them dying. It's like building the World Trade Center only to blow it up.

Next point- Why can't they improve on the missteps of the comics? Brcause these aren't comics. Audiences don't have to wait only a few weeks to see the development of Peter's character. They'll have to wait a good two years. And to what avail? His moving onto a new relationship.

"Oh okay- we built up the World Trade Center, then blew it up so we can make a whole new building. We don't know if it'll stand, but stick with us anyway."

To adress your final point. Hollywood doesn't have the stones to deal with the loss realistically. Peter's realistic reaction to Gwen's death would be life-altering. A change in how he deals with relationships. A change in how he deals with villains. A change in Peter as a person, period. He'd likely even become somewhat self-destructive for a time. It would mean making the alrady mirkiness of Peter's life even more dense. This when there are, again- so many other stories to tell that would follow the tone of Spider-Man without all of that baggage.

 

[Crook]

Talk about dense. NO. Losing a loved one IS NOT AN OBSTACLE. Losing a job is an obstacle. Flunking a college course is an obstacle. Being behind on the rent is an obstacle.

...really? It was not blatantly obvious the use of 'obstacle' was to describe the creative intent of placing roadblocks in a character's path to shake up their comfort zone and force circumvention through unconventional means?

Losing a loved one prematurely is a life-impacting TRAGEDY. And- when you factor in as in Peter's case- that death being partially your fault, then you've got a whole friggin' lotta pain to carry with you for the rest of your days.

Wow. That sounds like gripping stuff. In fact, that actually hasn't been covered by a pop culture hero on film, unless you count Bond. And even then it wasn't as effective as taking away someone we've grown to love over the years. Where is the problem again?

In Gwens's case, Peter is largely responsible, and not because of his choice of firing a webline. Peter put her on that bridge by not telling her that she was walking with a target on her back. Peter never gave Gwen the choice to walk away or accept the danger.

Now, because Gwen's death was merely a cheese-ball gimmick, this was never explored. Peter never owned up to his real guilt in her death.

So in effect you're bringing up flaws within the story that the filmmakers would have to consider if they'd ever think of bringing it to life. This is standard procedure. Logically speaking, if there is even an ounce of competence between them, they'd pinpoint these missteps and eradicate them completely or restructure them so they cease to be mistakes.

And you think this is a challenge?
(Dragon takes an Ace Ventura-esque inhale) Okay...

If the ultimate result is Gwen's death you're already telling the same story. ASMs 121-122 had no other underlying plot. It was directy and solely about how Gwen is killed because she's collateral damage in the Goblin's vendetta with Spider-Man. No suggestion that Gwen in some way created her own fate. No purpose (Until Sins Past ) in the Goblin killing her other than as a way to destroy Peter. A mere shift if details such as villain and manner of death are meaningless. It would also be a serious juggling act for Hollywood, who struggles with simple dialogue and simplr plot pstructuring to create a new set of events that match the tragic-irony of the comics.

Marvel's reasoning for the death were three-fold.

1. Gerry Conway hated Gwen (Much like Quesada doesn't like MJ) and at age 19 couldn't skillfully handle wirintg a long term love relationship.
2. To gnerate an atmosphere of suspense for the fans.
3. Some misguided idea the MJ would make a better girlfirnd.

These weren't very good reasons..
So again I ask YOU- What is the point in developing Gwen only to kill her?

I couldn't care less what the underlying reasons were for Gwen being killed off. I'm a fan of the product, I don't concern myself with politics on the inside. I'm looking strictly at the ideas and concept through the eyes of an audience member, and what would likely keep my interests.

The story arc covers three very integral themes: crisis, consequence, and vulnerability. The crisis of the hero having his identity compromised and endangering loved ones is rarely explored in these films. It's always a matter of the hero trying to keep the dual identities because of this fear. I want to see this fear manifest itself into a reality. The paranoia, the pressure, the guilt from not knowing when a severe attack is going to occur...in the hands of a great writer and director, that's engaging.

Consequence and vulnerability: well, you've pretty much summed this up for the both of us. The hero fails. Epically. I want to see this on-screen. Too many times there's a false sense of danger, but that quickly dissipates by the end credits. The hero lives on to fight another day not having lost anything. This is probably the genre's biggest hurdle. Nolan has been the best guy to try and overcome this, but there's no reason why Bats has to be the only property to take advantage. I'd like to see Spidey take big decisions and I'd like to see one of them lead to permanent change. Let the audience see the ripple effects throughout the series. Make the franchise a grand story that has strands of emotional tangibility across its characters and world. Don't turn it into a "villain of the week" serial.

You're right, there are tons of great Spidey stories out there. But you'd be hard-pressed to find one whose potential for a re-imagining on film, fires from all fronts like this arc does.

To address your next point- Modernizing Gwen or her story are not the issue. (And let's don't bring up how other chracters have been modernized in films, since most superhero films haven't been very good). But again- you're talking about skillfully building a character only to result in them dying. It's like building the World Trade Center only to blow it up.

As your words: "to emotionally carjack the audience". Look at most captivating stories of any medium. Can you honestly tell me that it was conventional and predictable? The joys of being an audience member is going on that rollercoaster ride of fantasy, not knowing what you'll encounter. In fact, having your heart strings pulled and senses jarred is what's fun about stories. You can't achieve this through the narrative equivalent of a walk in the park on a sunny day.

Moreover, it seems you are suggesting death in fiction serves no purpose. Or at least you're wondering what that purpose is. For a fan of Spidey, whose entire creation stems from loss...that is strange. Death is permanent and forces change. It forms growth and development that otherwise would not exist if it were not for that loss. From a creative standpoint it more than has its merits.

Next point- Why can't they improve on the missteps of the comics? Brcause these aren't comics. Audiences don't have to wait only a few weeks to see the development of Peter's character. They'll have to wait a good two years. And to what avail? His moving onto a new relationship.

"Oh okay- we built up the World Trade Center, then blew it up so we can make a whole new building. We don't know if it'll stand, but stick with us anyway."

Again with the personal projections. Ok, so Gwen is dead and MJ is now in the picture. Everything is back to square one? NO. I've outlined plenty of routes to take this story up above, it's not as limited as you paint it to be. You're cherry-picking scenarios that inevitably lead to redundancy and stagnancy while rhetorically asking "what's the point???"

You're being a jackass at worst and disingenuous at best.

To adress your final point. Hollywood doesn't have the stones to deal with the loss realistically. Peter's realistic reaction to Gwen's death would be life-altering. A change in how he deals with relationships. A change in how he deals with villains. A change in Peter as a person, period. He'd likely even become somewhat self-destructive for a time. It would mean making the alrady mirkiness of Peter's life even more dense. This when there are, again- so many other stories to tell that would follow the tone of Spider-Man without all of that baggage.

Hollywood never has the stones for anything. Directors and writers do. It's a matter of convincing them to greenlight it and let the magic just happen. From what I can understand you're not interested (or averse) to radical alterations in Peter's life. As I've put above, I find it intriguing. I can enjoy episodic films, but it's not nearly as engrossing as films that strive to be more than what the standard entails.

 

[©KAW]

I like the way Crook thinks.

I never realize why when it comes to the Spider-Man movies, people will settle for weak story telling, and not want to see something with complexity in the characters, that lingers long after you've seen the film. To do that with a comic book film is rare. But if they continue to take a way key attributes, water down characters and story arcs...it can never be achieved with these films. And I think that in the end, it's fans and the audience that are the ones who lose out.

Three movies and closes we've come to seeing the Gwen Stacy story arc is in The Dark Knight. That's just damn right sad.

 

[Dragon]

...really? It was not blatantly obvious the use of 'obstacle' was to describe the creative intent of placing roadblocks in a character's path to shake up their comfort zone and force circumvention through unconventional means?

How do you circumvent someone's death, unconventionally or otherwise? A person dying is not something that happens to those that are left behnd. To relegate it to being an obstacle for someone left to mourn is a self-centered perception.

Wow. That sounds like gripping stuff. In fact, that actually hasn't been covered by a pop culture hero on film, unless you count Bond. And even then it wasn't as effective as taking away someone we've grown to love over the years. Where is the problem again?

Because that's not Spider-Man. Gwen's death was an anomally and only meant to be an expedient . It didn't reflect the tone of Spider-Man before or after. If even Spider-Man's creator didn't agree with it, then you know it's off.

So in effect you're bringing up flaws within the story that the filmmakers would have to consider if they'd ever think of bringing it to life. This is standard procedure. Logically speaking, if there is even an ounce of competence between them, they'd pinpoint these missteps and eradicate them completely or restructure them so they cease to be mistakes.

Comic book filmmakers have yet to tell even a simple story well. Even the overrated Dark Knight is loaded down with plot and structural issues that the writer-director could scarcely address.

And I doubt that the current crew working on Spider-Man are equipped to do any better.

I couldn't care less what the underlying reasons were for Gwen being killed off. I'm a fan of the product, I don't concern myself with politics on the inside. I'm looking strictly at the ideas and concept through the eyes of an audience member, and what would likely keep my interests.

Okay. So you're saying out of a possible six or so films, only one would hold your interest? Then you're not an audience member Sony will care about pleasing anyway.

The story arc covers three very integral themes: crisis, consequence, and vulnerability. The crisis of the hero having his identity compromised and endangering loved ones is rarely explored in these films. It's always a matter of the hero trying to keep the dual identities because of this fear. I want to see this fear manifest itself into a reality. The paranoia, the pressure, the guilt from not knowing when a severe attack is going to occur...in the hands of a great writer and director, that's engaging.

.....................Name the superhero story that doesn't focus on crisis, consequence and vulnerability.

Endangering loved ones is rarely explored in thses films? Yeah, except for in Spider-Man 1,2 & 3.

Consequence and vulnerability: well, you've pretty much summed this up for the both of us. The hero fails. Epically. I want to see this on-screen. Too many times there's a false sense of danger, but that quickly dissipates by the end credits. The hero lives on to fight another day not having lost anything. This is probably the genre's biggest hurdle. Nolan has been the best guy to try and overcome this, but there's no reason why Bats has to be the only property to take advantage. I'd like to see Spidey take big decisions and I'd like to see one of them lead to permanent change. Let the audience see the ripple effects throughout the series. Make the franchise a grand story that has strands of emotional tangibility across its characters and world. Don't turn it into a "villain of the week" serial.

Nolan does what? Nolan's work involved no stakes. He killed a character that noone liked and was not truly Bruce's love interest. She merely represented to Bruce some unattenable ideal of life beyond his role as Batamn. But since Nolan never effectively explores the pain of being Batman for Bruce (Raimi does this far more effectively with Peter) it's not a very strong point.

Now- the actual hurdle of the challenge you mention would not be solved by Gwen's death. The only way this could be solved is if they were willing to kill Peter. And they aren't. After Gwen's death (As in the comics) the false sense of danger you mention will be right back, because we know that ultimately Peter will never die.

And honestly, you're in a very small minority. Most folks don't want to see Peter fail. Not to the degree of Gwen's death, anyway. We want to see Peter struggle, but ultimately overcome his challenges. And we want to trust thst he'll come through when it matters most. Again, sales dropped when Gwen was killed in the comics.

[quotes]You're right, there are tons of great Spidey stories out there. But you'd be hard-pressed to find one whose potential for a re-imagining on film, fires from all fronts like this arc does.[/quote]

Of course there are.

You don't have to go to extreme acts of violence to make a great film. Merely fully exploring xharacters and thow they get through a given situation will suffice

As your words: "to emotionally carjack the audience". Look at most captivating stories of any medium. Can you honestly tell me that it was conventional and predictable? The joys of being an audience member is going on that rollercoaster ride of fantasy, not knowing what you'll encounter. In fact, having your heart strings pulled and senses jarred is what's fun about stories. You can't achieve this through the narrative equivalent of a walk in the park on a sunny day.

Oh please. When has Peter Parker's life EVER been presented to be a walk in the park?
And since you know going in that Gwen is going to die, there's no rollercoastering involved.

Moreover, it seems you are suggesting death in fiction serves no purpose. Or at least you're wondering what that purpose is. For a fan of Spidey, whose entire creation stems from loss...that is strange. Death is permanent and forces change. It forms growth and development that otherwise would not exist if it were not for that loss. From a creative standpoint it more than has its merits.

Death is permanent? Have you read a Marvel Comic book? Only in the rarest of cases is death permanent.

Using death as a go to to pull at the heart strings irenders it ineffective.

And in Peter's case, only if they were to devote the last 3 films to his recovery from Gwen's death, culminating his own (or perhaps his permanently being crippled) would it be handled in a thoroough (Albeit not very entetaining) and challenging manner. And again, that ain't gonna happen

Again with the personal projections. Ok, so Gwen is dead and MJ is now in the picture. Everything is back to square one? NO. I've outlined plenty of routes to take this story up above, it's not as limited as you paint it to be. You're cherry-picking scenarios that inevitably lead to redundancy and stagnancy while rhetorically asking "what's the point???"

I'm making realistic projections of what a Hollywood studio will be doing with a multi-billion dollar franchise. You're not.

You're being a jackass at worst and disingenuous at best.

"When Fanboys Go Wild".. Truly a sad thing to see. Unbelt your pants from around your chest and breath my friend. This is a discussion that ultimately means nothing to either of our lives.

Hollywood never has the stones for anything. Directors and writers do. It's a matter of convincing them to greenlight it and let the magic just happen. From what I can understand you're not interested (or averse) to radical alterations in Peter's life. As I've put above, I find it intriguing. I can enjoy episodic films, but it's not nearly as engrossing as films that strive to be more than what the standard entails.

Writers and Directors work for the studios. Or did you miss what hapened with Sam Raimi?

And Spider-Man the character, the comic book has a certain tone to it. It's not Batman or Iron Man. There's a reason why people follow the character of Peter Parker.