The Amazing Spider-Man The Gwen Stacy thread

[©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.[/QUOTE]


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.

 

[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 ******* 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.

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. :

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. :

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. 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.

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 *****e 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.