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

[Crook]

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.

Please stop being so literal. I don't know how it's not obvious I'm speaking in writing terms. Death, as with any obstacle, places a roadblock to a path that any particular character has followed and is accustomed to. Any means a writer uses to put this path in disarray, forces its character to find an alternative route.

These are the basics of most stories. Otherwise there'd be no actual threat, no ups-and-downs, just a linear and boring path where nothing out of the ordinary happens.

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.

This isn't even a counterpoint. All you're succeeding at is relaying the difficulties associated with good writing. I promise you I realize this so please stop repeating it. I'm not talking about politics, I'm not talking about how hard it is, or the probabilities it has of happening. I'm talking about the arc. If you don't wish to partake in that area of discussion, we can stop here.

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.

No. That's not at all what I said. If I stated to you that I liked chocolate, you'd be dimwitted to make the conclusion that I had no other interests in different flavors.

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

No. That's not at all what I said. If I stated to you that cinema was the most balanced and fluid form of storytelling, you'd be dimwitted to make the conclusion that no other medium could hold their own.

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

Citing Raimi's incredibly hackneyed way of magically making the love interest the focal person in distress, for three consecutive films in a row? Not really smart. Especially when you're the one referencing expediency as an abomination.

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.

Moving on ...

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.

1) I don't want 'false sense of danger' in this series. I lambasted it.
2) The real danger exists for both Peter and his loved ones. It only disappears when that source of danger is completely extinguished from existence.
3) The pre-conceived knowledge that the titular character will make it out in the end does not take away from the visceral and exhilarating nature of a captivating story. You're along for that ride through and through.

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.

I can guarantee I am not remotely in the minority. EVERYONE wants to see a character have to fight and struggle. Failure is apart of this, even if it isn't permanent (though that is relative). The lack of emotional and physical resistance amounts to a bland and stagnant narrative. NO ONE wants that.

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

Oh please. When has Peter Parker's life EVER been presented to be a walk in the park?

I almost want to make a game out of this. I make one statement, you twist it into something I didn't say or imply, presumably out of thin air!

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

Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were trying to leave gimmicks out of this conversation. You've been so adamant about it, and yet are quick to pull that "the comics did it!" card at a moment's notice when you see fit? Amusing.

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

Your false sense of omniscience is very disturbing. You cannot possibly think your projections are the only right ways of handling the material. Or that it's even actually true. Did you even see how much Godfather 1 and 2 covered? LOTR and SW as trilogies? Vast, vast, vast material. And this is with multiple plot threads going on. You're out of your damn mind if you think that is the absolute minimum time required to cover Peter's emotional turmoil. Never mind that be the case when it's the focal point of all three films.

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

You're right. This topic is about a story. Not the politics behind the story. When you asked me to convey my position on the arc, you asked me as a fan. You yourself are a fan. That's all you and I are. Quit trying to make yourself and this topic more than what it needs to be.

"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.

Of course not. But when I take the time to banter for a lengthy amount of time, I expect some common courtesy. I don't mind opposing stances, it feeds healthy discussion. I'm going to assume you're not a moron, so that only leaves the alternative that you're manipulating large parts of the topic to corner me for whatever reason.

That's not debating, that's just...baiting. I have no time or patience for that.

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.

I've been a fan of Peter Parker ever since I was a kid, thanks. I don't need to hear yet another false accusation of the comic book's tone, in a post-TDK world.

 

[Chris Wallace]

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

Okay-can you STOP being the ONLY person who agrees with me on these things?

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.

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.

Killing off the hero's love interest when the audience actually cares about her could potentially ruin the movie. When Rachel died, true, nobody really cared because we just wanted to see Harvey become Two-Face, and her character had never been all that interesting. But like you said in a previous post, getting audiences emotionally invested in her only to kill her off would be a total rip-off. All of that just for the shock value of seeing her die? And again, the GA would probably feel like "Yay, now let's move on to MJ." And truth be told, whether we were attached to Gwen or not, she becomes almost irrelevant when we see Peter fall in love again and move on.
I watched "Smallville" for years waiting for Clark to forget about Lana so he could move on to Lois. Why? Because that's who I'd been conditioned to belive he was supposed to be with. It's really no different here. We don't need a throwaway love interest.

And I truly believe it made sense for Raimi not to play out the bridge scene to the letter; first off, it would have ended the movie on a tragic note, with Peter having suffered two big losses in one movie. Secondly it would have nullified the point of the first loss. Uncle Ben's death resulted from his own inaction, which carried the message of "With great power comes great responsibility". Had he lost MJ while fighting to save her, it would have cancelled that out & taught him instead that people you love are gonna die in front of you no matter what you do. So why bother?
And if I remember correctly, Stan himself said that he disagreed with the decision to kill her off. As memorable as that panel may have been, why revisit it on film if in the long run it was a mistake?

 

[Dragon]

Please stop being so literal. I don't know how it's not obvious I'm speaking in writing terms. Death, as with any obstacle, places a roadblock to a path that any particular character has followed and is accustomed to. Any means a writer uses to put this path in disarray, forces its character to find an alternative route.

Just admit that you misspoke. It's your own words that are tripping you up.

It doesn't matter how you try to explain it or define it. The death of a loved one is not an obstacle. The loss of a job and such is an obstacle. To put it in your terms it isn't something to get around or over. It means the road you had been on is suddenly eliminated. You have to find a different road entirely and then set yourself upon it.

These are the basics of most stories. Otherwise there'd be no actual threat, no ups-and-downs, just a linear and boring path where nothing out of the ordinary happens.

If you think that extreme actions like losing the woman he loves is the best way to convey drama in Peter's life then you don't know drama. A skilled story-teller can give a great story from even the most mundane things.

This isn't even a counterpoint. All you're succeeding at is relaying the difficulties associated with good writing. I promise you I realize this so please stop repeating it. I'm not talking about politics, I'm not talking about how hard it is, or the probabilities it has of happening. I'm talking about the arc. If you don't wish to partake in that area of discussion, we can stop here.

Do as you like. Your point is why this story arc would be worth structuring the first three films around. My point is that because of the type of films these are, the budgetary requirements, the expected audience and needed returns to justify them, it's both unlikely that the studio will be able to properly execute it and the the audience will be responsive to it. If these were low budget films targeting a small audience it would be one thing. But that's not the case.

No. That's not at all what I said. If I stated to you that I liked chocolate, you'd be dimwitted to make the conclusion that I had no other interests in different flavors.

But in this case, chocolate is all you're asking for. And you're even saying that all other flavors are inferior to chocolate (I'm getting hungry).

No. That's not at all what I said. If I stated to you that cinema was the most balanced and fluid form of storytelling, you'd be dimwitted to make the conclusion that no other medium could hold their own.

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

Citing Raimi's incredibly hackneyed way of magically making the love interest the focal person in distress, for three consecutive films in a row? Not really smart. Especially when you're the one referencing expediency as an abomination.

The Gwen Stacy Death arc does nothing other than the Raimi films, except kill her. It doesn't even make Gwen a character. She's an object. The great power of the arc is the extreme that it drives both Peter and Norman to. From page 1 of #121 to the final page of #122 the characters are on fire. And that makes it classic. But this could be accomplished even without Gwen's death. Again- the wisdom of Stan Lee. During his run he almost never played the Damsel in Distress card with Gwen. So merely having Peter expereience first hand the danger he was placing Gwen in would be powerful enough. If the story ended with Peter knowing that he had to make a hard decision about his relationship with Gwen to ensure that she never face such danger again, that would be strong enough. The mistake of Raimi's films (Granted there are many) is that he almost never brought Peter to that level of intensity, even though the material set this up.

1) I don't want 'false sense of danger' in this series. I lambasted it.

Then as I'd said, they'd have to be willing to kill Peter. And you know this isn't going to happen. Not in Hollywood.

2) The real danger exists for both Peter and his loved ones. It only disappears when that source of danger is completely extinguished from existence.

You're contradicting yourself. If the danger exists until its extinguished than its there whether Gwen is killed or not. But if it requires a death to be real, then there has to be continuous deaths, culminating in Peter's own death. But then, you have have people constantly dying then you immunize the audinece to its importance.

3) The pre-conceived knowledge that the titular character will make it out in the end does not take away from the visceral and exhilarating nature of a captivating story. You're along for that ride through and through.

The same is even more ture of the supoorting characters.

I can guarantee I am not remotely in the minority. EVERYONE wants to see a character have to fight and struggle.

I already said that.

Failure is apart of this, even if it isn't permanent (though that is relative). The lack of emotional and physical resistance amounts to a bland and stagnant narrative. NO ONE wants that.

You haven't said a single thing in this response that I didn't already say. And that has nothing to do with Peter failing to save the woman he loves. That's too extreme a failure. To the point of our losing faith in him and no longer wanting to follow him. You wanting to see that extreme a failure puts you in the minority. Hell, even Marvel didn't want to see that again, which is why they never presented such a thing again.

I almost want to make a game out of this. I make one statement, you twist it into something I didn't say or imply, presumably out of thin air!

That statement was pretty clear. Maybe you need to think through what you say a little more.

Your false sense of omniscience is very disturbing.

I think its light and flakey with a sweet, creamy middle.

You cannot possibly think your projections are the only right ways of handling the material. Or that it's even actually true. Did you even see how much Godfather 1 and 2 covered? LOTR and SW as trilogies? Vast, vast, vast material. And this is with multiple plot threads going on. You're out of your damn mind if you think that is the absolute minimum time required to cover Peter's emotional turmoil. Never mind that be the case when it's the focal point of all three films.

You're talking about my projwctions as if you're not making your own.

So you're going to take every storyline as being equal; regardless of its content or the characters involved the same amount of screentime will suffice? For example, the Godfather films skipped over many years and didn't fully examaine events (such as Sonny's recovery from Apollonia's killing, the dissolving of his marriage to Kate) because it had an overall story to depict. Peter's story is personal. His experience in being a superhuman crime fighter and how it affects his quality of life and that of those he loves. If Peter was so affected by the death of Uncle Ben as to embark on a life's mission, then his being partially responsible for an innocent death would have that much more impact. That innocent being the woman he loves and in fact wanted to build a new life with- means that much more impact. His dealing with that realisitcally would sure as hell take more than one film. Unless, like The Godfather we jumped around several years, which wouldn't happen in the structure of a Spider-Man story.

I've been a fan of Peter Parker ever since I was a kid, thanks. I don't need to hear yet another false accusation of the comic book's tone, in a post-TDK world.

Wow. I knew we were in a post-911 world. A post-Economic collapse world. A Post-Obama electoral world. But a post-TDK world? I think I'll have to re-watch the movie, because I must've missed how it changed our lives.

 

[Oscorp]

To be really honest, you all have great points so it's really hard to decide what I'd prefer.

I definitely agree that building up Gwen, just to know that she eventually will be killed anyway, kinda kills the hype. No matter how likeable she'd be, the knowledge of her eventual death would make the audience not care for her I think. Of course, the general audience wouldn't know, but we do. And even though the GA probably ain't aware of her death-to-come, they'd probably feel "uhm...ookay?" if Parker just moves on to Mary Jane instead.

However, even though it would kill the relationship for us fans to know that she'll die anyway, I still think her death is a great story. And to be really honest (I'll probably get ALOT of flaming for this), I actually think Norman Osborn/Green Goblin is a more important character overall. And for best effect to him, I definitely think it's needed for him to kill Gwen. Call me narrow-minded, but that's my opinion.

However, if there is a way for the directors to work around those problems instead of killing Gwen, I'm definitely all for it! So I'm not on either side, I definitely see all your points of view.

 

[Crook]

Just admit that you misspoke. It's your own words that are tripping you up.

It doesn't matter how you try to explain it or define it. The death of a loved one is not an obstacle. The loss of a job and such is an obstacle. To put it in your terms it isn't something to get around or over. It means the road you had been on is suddenly eliminated. You have to find a different road entirely and then set yourself upon it.

It's amazing how you completely dismissed a generally accepted definition of a word, only to provide your own definition...that's exactly the same as the one you just wrote off. Hey dictionary, help me out!

ob·sta·cle (ŏb'stə-kəl)
n. One that opposes, stands in the way of, or holds up progress.
I feel like I'm in kindergarten here, but let's try to simply things. You're walking down a sidewalk. There is a trash can blocking the path. How do you get pastit? Why, only three ways: you remove it, you go over it, or you go around it.

Death works exactly the same way. It's something you actively have to get over, or you can choose to let it linger and simply ignore direct interaction/confrontation by going around it. These actions are the very definition of how to get past an obstruction, or as I've said all damn long...an OBSTACLE.

I never misspoke. The above is me reinforcing my words as originally stated. I'm on firm ground here. It's you that seems to have trouble grasping such a ridiculously simple concept.

If you think that extreme actions like losing the woman he loves is the best way to convey drama in Peter's life then you don't know drama. A skilled story-teller can give a great story from even the most mundane things.

Reading. It helps. The sentence you're responding to was part of an overall point about the function of obstacles in stories. Death is part of that group, but was not at all the focus of my point. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Do as you like. Your point is why this story arc would be worth structuring the first three films around. My point is that because of the type of films these are, the budgetary requirements, the expected audience and needed returns to justify them, it's both unlikely that the studio will be able to properly execute it and the the audience will be responsive to it. If these were low budget films targeting a small audience it would be one thing. But that's not the case.

As I have repeated before, this entire debate sparked from a question you asked me on the story. We are both comic book fans, readers, and message board posters. I've responded to you from that perspective as I had assumed that's whom I was conversing with. You gave absolutely no indication you wanted to bring studio politics into the subject. Frankly, the setting we are in hardly ever takes the suits to consideration. They're a bunch of wildcards, we never know what they're gonna pull. So I'm not going to bother with such an unknown factor and neither should you.

But in this case, chocolate is all you're asking for. And you're even saying that all other flavors are inferior to chocolate (I'm getting hungry).

No, I'm giving you reasons why if I had a choice, chocolate would be my preferred. If I was given vanilla, I would likely not complain all the same.

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

I see that I have to repeat everything to you. Here's what I wrote that you apparently just ignored:

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.

I never said superhero films lacked those three qualities. I said none have the impact that this particular arc does, nor does it handle those (generic) hurdles in such a drastic fashion.

The Gwen Stacy Death arc does nothing other than the Raimi films, except kill her. It doesn't even make Gwen a character. She's an object. The great power of the arc is the extreme that it drives both Peter and Norman to. From page 1 of #121 to the final page of #122 the characters are on fire. And that makes it classic. But this could be accomplished even without Gwen's death. Again- the wisdom of Stan Lee. During his run he almost never played the Damsel in Distress card with Gwen. So merely having Peter expereience first hand the danger he was placing Gwen in would be powerful enough. If the story ended with Peter knowing that he had to make a hard decision about his relationship with Gwen to ensure that she never face such danger again, that would be strong enough. The mistake of Raimi's films (Granted there are many) is that he almost never brought Peter to that level of intensity, even though the material set this up.

You're under the impression that I think killing Gwen is the only means of accomplishing all the great elements it brings out of the characters. It is not. I'm saying this story best integrates all of it into one complete package. You summed up a lot of great things there. That's what I want to see on-screen. Consistently relegating Gwen to the regular damsel in distress does destroy what her final role would be. As you suggested, they should avoid this. Make her into a character, and don't rely on conventional storytelling to integrate her into the climax with the villain-of-the-week. If I had it my way, the death arc would be her first and only exposure to dangerous territory.

Then as I'd said, they'd have to be willing to kill Peter. And you know this isn't going to happen. Not in Hollywood.

No. They'd have to kill Norman. In this story, he's the source of the peril. This is Hollywood, killing the villain is practically the norm.

You're contradicting yourself. If the danger exists until its extinguished than its there whether Gwen is killed or not. But if it requires a death to be real, then there has to be continuous deaths, culminating in Peter's own death. But then, you have have people constantly dying then you immunize the audinece to its importance.

Where is this killing Peter thing coming from? Of course that'd be the ultimate end to the danger, because it's the end of the entire damn mythos. There's nothing to care about if the titular character is dead. The franchise IS Spidey. Hypothetically speaking, if we're talking about a six-film series, both Gwen and Norm are built up as characters for the first trilogy, culminating in the death of Gwen at the end of the third. The danger lies in the moment Norm figures out Pete's identity. This could be in the second, or it could just as well be in the third. This danger ends when Norm dies, conceivably because he is the only person to know and cause harm to Pete's life, both public and private. This could be in the third or it could be settled in the fourth if they choose to stretch it. Point is it's not tough to bookend the arc. Norm is the issue here, not Pete.

The same is even more ture of the supoorting characters.

Yes. So what exactly are you contending here? Whether we have a vague sense of where the general finish line lies, we still have the entire joyride to get there. That is the experience.

You haven't said a single thing in this response that I didn't already say. And that has nothing to do with Peter failing to save the woman he loves. That's too extreme a failure. To the point of our losing faith in him and no longer wanting to follow him. You wanting to see that extreme a failure puts you in the minority. Hell, even Marvel didn't want to see that again, which is why they never presented such a thing again.

Mhm. A Death In The Family, Death of Gwen Stacy, Emerald Twilight, Rise of the Phoenix...all prime examples of extreme failures on the behalf of the heroes, and yet to this day are consistently heralded by fans as hallmark events of the mythos. Minority my ass.

That statement was pretty clear. Maybe you need to think through what you say a little more.

The statements is pretty damn clear, all the more jarring that you still managed to misread it. Here's a brief summation of that exchange:

You: why kill a person that everyone loves? what does that gain?
Me: taking away what the audience loves is one of the many jolts involved in storytelling. jarring their expectations creates thrill and awe that allows them to be captivated. most stories utilize this method, otherwise there'd be nothing for audiences to latch onto, if everything goes as planned.
You: WTF? Spidey stories don't have thrill and awe? they're boring and predictable, is that right? are you kidding me?!?
Me:

So you're going to take every storyline as being equal; regardless of its content or the characters involved the same amount of screentime will suffice? For example, the Godfather films skipped over many years and didn't fully examaine events (such as Sonny's recovery from Apollonia's killing, the dissolving of his marriage to Kate) because it had an overall story to depict. Peter's story is personal. His experience in being a superhuman crime fighter and how it affects his quality of life and that of those he loves. If Peter was so affected by the death of Uncle Ben as to embark on a life's mission, then his being partially responsible for an innocent death would have that much more impact. That innocent being the woman he loves and in fact wanted to build a new life with- means that much more impact. His dealing with that realisitcally would sure as hell take more than one film. Unless, like The Godfather we jumped around several years, which wouldn't happen in the structure of a Spider-Man story.

All that writing and you still missed my point. It's not about what they covered or how they did it. It's how much they fit into 2-3 films. Which is-- a s**tload. The direct emotional aftermath that Pete goes through can be covered with one film as a main plot point. After that, it can exist, but not to such a great degree as he starts to move on with the likes of MJ.

Wow. I knew we were in a post-911 world. A post-Economic collapse world. A Post-Obama electoral world. But a post-TDK world? I think I'll have to re-watch the movie, because I must've missed how it changed our lives.

Way to exaggerate a statement. In the context of Hollywood, comic book fandom, and pop culture, 'post-TDK world' has its place. The film has had enormous influence and is always ever-present in the most random of discussions, especially when it pertains to future films such as this. You will note that its tone and direction is constantly being brought forth when fans are debating how current properties should be handled.

 

[aty990]

It's a reboot. The upcoming movie or movies should not be compared to Raimi's. This may seem sad to some and they may not be able to comprehend the fact, but a reboot basically means taking an eraser to the past movies of the same and starting new. The Raimi movies really do not matter, anymore. If they kill off Gwen Stacy then they are staying true to the comics. This is what should be done. Do not listen to the complainers about how they should not do this or that because of Raimi's movies. The reboot is going to make a huge bundle of money, anyways.

 

[TheSlag]

It's a reboot. The upcoming movie or movies should not be compared to Raimi's. This may seem sad to some and they may not be able to comprehend the fact, but a reboot basically means taking an eraser to the past movies of the same and starting new. The Raimi movies really do not matter, anymore. If they kill off Gwen Stacy then they are staying true to the comics. This is what should be done. Do not listen to the complainers about how they should not do this or that because of Raimi's movies. The reboot is going to make a huge bundle of money, anyways.

I totally agree, and Crook you have both the patience and wisdom of Solomon my man... Rock on Brother!

 

[Chris Wallace]

Should the Joker have poisoned town square in TDK then? Should the Abomination have been Bruce's fatherin TIH? Should Jigsaw have been a member of the Saint family in War Zone? Reboot also means (or at least it should) breaking away and trying NEW things, not trying to put a different spin on what was done SO VERY RECENTLY that it's still fresh in the audience's minds. Had the time lapse between Raimi's first film (and Raimi's movies DO matter; let's not forget that until he refused to play ball with changes he didn't like, Sony was COMPLETELY WILLING to continue his series) and the reboot been longer, I wouldn't mind them going the route that you guys are suggesting. But it's not.
And it's never a good idea to try to predict box office take on a movie that hasn't even begun filming; any number of things could go wrong. General moviegoers aren't as in love with the reboot concept (or even as aware of it) as some comic book fans. Nothing is guaranteed.

 

[Crook]

Should the Joker have poisoned town square in TDK then? Should the Abomination have been Bruce's fatherin TIH? Should Jigsaw have been a member of the Saint family in War Zone? Reboot also means (or at least it should) breaking away and trying NEW things, not trying to put a different spin on what was done SO VERY RECENTLY that it's still fresh in the audience's minds. Had the time lapse between Raimi's first film (and Raimi's movies DO matter; let's not forget that until he refused to play ball with changes he didn't like, Sony was COMPLETELY WILLING to continue his series) and the reboot been longer, I wouldn't mind them going the route that you guys are suggesting. But it's not.
And it's never a good idea to try to predict box office take on a movie that hasn't even begun filming; any number of things could go wrong. General moviegoers aren't as in love with the reboot concept (or even as aware of it) as some comic book fans. Nothing is guaranteed.

And what is sufficiently long for you? My suggestion saves the arc for the third film. Should they follow a film-per-2-year plan, that makes the actual story in question to be placed at 2016. Hell, they could even do it in the second film at 2014. At the very minimum, we're looking at 13 years from the original film where Raimi borrowed elements from the arc. That's half a generation.

 

[bizbaz20]

I think the death of Gwen Stacy storyline should be played out since no-one really wants to see it happen.

This is why I think the casting of Gwen should be so important, to make her likeable and a popular character only to make her have one of the most tragic death.

It was a tragedy in the comics when she died and I think it would make for a poweful and emotional storyline for the film.

It would highlight one major thing in Spider-Man's life, he can try all he can be can never save everyone. It really hits home that while he's a superhero, he's still a man, with emotions and feelings.

It highlights in Peter Parker's life that he can never really have a love life, his work is too dangerous and the ones he loves will always be threatened.

They tried to do this with the Spider-Man films by putting Mary Jane in danger at the end of every film and also chucking Aunt May off a building, but that's the thing... they were all saved.

Having Gwen die will be emotional but it will highlight even more that Peter Parker can never really have a love life and can never show his real identity.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Peter CAN have a lovelife as long as he keeps his identity under wraps. He can share it with someone close to him but he can't do something stupid like, oh I don't know, unmask in a press conference seen around the world.