The Amazing Spider-Man When and how should Gwen Stacy die? - Part 1

[spideyboy_1111]

haha. very true

 

[Web face]

Well, WE settled our dispute awhile back, didn't we?

Yeah, but I suggest you and LegendAssemble try to do the same.

 

[LegendAssemble]

Yeah, but I suggest you and LegendAssemble try to do the same.

He comments on everything remotely relating to Gwen, I get it he doesn't want her to die. It's just the same argument over and over.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

He comments on everything remotely relating to Gwen, I get it he doesn't want her to die. It's just the same argument over and over.

not to mention, will literally comment on EVERY pro death comment... it gets a bit tiresome. we get his opinion, doesn't mean he needs to counter EVERY single persons.

 

[LegendAssemble]

not to mention, will literally comment on EVERY pro death comment... it gets a bit tiresome. we get his opinion, doesn't mean he needs to counter EVERY single persons.

Given the nature of the thread, assuming she dies is a given, that applies to anyone whos puts their two cents on the discussion.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Given the nature of the thread, assuming she dies is a given, that applies to anyone whos puts their two cents on the discussion.

well. luckly 74% want that story played out...

 

[LegendAssemble]

well. luckly 74% want that story played out...

And lucky Sony will pander to whatever we say we want so it's official movie 2 just like the comics! lol

 

[Xeno]

Having just read the last few pages, I have to say that this debate is about as amusing as watching a bobtail cat chase its own behind. Had I known the Spidey forums were this fractious I'd have joined in long ago.


There isn't any possibility that the producers chose Gwen Stacy as Peter's love interest without planning to ultimately play out her death, just as in the classic comic book story. There simply is no more powerful tale of tragedy and loss than the death of Gwen Stacy in the entire medium. Not to follow through on the characters' arc so would be to betray the source material completely, as well as to squander the dramatic possibilities afforded by it.


Some of the arguments in favor of gratuitously violating Spider-Man's iconic history by having Gwen survive strike me as ridiculous. She is a fictional character, not a real person, so wanting to see the story play out on screen is not "disgusting," nor are the people in favor of it immoral or bloodthirsty as some have implied in this thread. Think of all of the fictional stories that portray deaths and other horrible tragedies in the course of presenting an emotionally-satisfying (read: entertaining) story. Are Shakespeare's great tragedies disgusting because they show murders and suicides on stage? Many classic films and novels have death and its consequences central to their plots. Are they disgusting as well, or is it only Gwen Stacy's murder that arouses such a response? Those who still don't understand how such themes can be entertaining to an audience should research the term "catharsis" as it relates to drama and other art forms.


The Women in Refrigerators site has done a great deal to point out sexist treatment of female characters in comics, but regarding Gwen I believe that they tried to reduce one of the great stories to the level of the sort of hack work that gave comics an actual woman in a fridge. Gwen's death, seen in the context of the ongoing continuity, was the logical culmination of a long-running story. Norman Osborn's psychotic alter-ego had discovered Peter's secret identity long before. From that point onward, the Goblin represented a looming threat to everyone Parker loved or even knew personally. When Osborn finally kidnapped Gwen, it was the realization of Peter's worst fear: That his being Spider-Man would endanger those he loved the most. Her death was the tragically realistic outcome of Peter's decision to shoulder the great responsibility that his Uncle Ben spoke of. And his guilt in the aftermath echoed in a horrible way the guilt he felt after Ben Parker's death.


That is powerful stuff. It is tragedy, and it elevated Spider-Man's story above the empty and sometimes childish level so many comics operated on at that time.

 

[Oscorp]

Very good post xeno and I totally agree! Even Arad said that they wanted Gwen in this franchise because of her famous fate.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Having just read the last few pages, I have to say that this debate is about as amusing as watching a bobtail cat chase its own behind. Had I known the Spidey forums were this fractious I'd have joined in long ago.


There isn't any possibility that the producers chose Gwen Stacy as Peter's love interest without planning to ultimately play out her death, just as in the classic comic book story. There simply is no more powerful tale of tragedy and loss than the death of Gwen Stacy in the entire medium. Not to follow through on the characters' arc so would be to betray the source material completely, as well as to squander the dramatic possibilities afforded by it.


Some of the arguments in favor of gratuitously violating Spider-Man's iconic history by having Gwen survive strike me as ridiculous. She is a fictional character, not a real person, so wanting to see the story play out on screen is not "disgusting," nor are the people in favor of it immoral or bloodthirsty as some have implied in this thread. Think of all of the fictional stories that portray deaths and other horrible tragedies in the course of presenting an emotionally-satisfying (read: entertaining) story. Are Shakespeare's great tragedies disgusting because they show murders and suicides on stage? Many classic films and novels have death and its consequences central to their plots. Are they disgusting as well, or is it only Gwen Stacy's murder that arouses such a response? Those who still don't understand how such themes can be entertaining to an audience should research the term "catharsis" as it relates to drama and other art forms.


The Women in Refrigerators site has done a great deal to point out sexist treatment of female characters in comics, but regarding Gwen I believe that they tried to reduce one of the great stories to the level of the sort of hack work that gave comics an actual woman in a fridge. Gwen's death, seen in the context of the ongoing continuity, was the logical culmination of a long-running story. Norman Osborn's psychotic alter-ego had discovered Peter's secret identity long before. From that point onward, the Goblin represented a looming threat to everyone Parker loved or even knew personally. When Osborn finally kidnapped Gwen, it was the realization of Peter's worst fear: That his being Spider-Man would endanger those he loved the most. Her death was the tragically realistic outcome of Peter's decision to shoulder the great responsibility that his Uncle Ben spoke of. And his guilt in the aftermath echoed in a horrible way the guilt he felt after Ben Parker's death.


That is powerful stuff. It is tragedy, and it elevated Spider-Man's story above the empty and sometimes childish level so many comics operated on at that time.

Couldn't have been said better. Well said!

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Having just read the last few pages, I have to say that this debate is about as amusing as watching a bobtail cat chase its own behind. Had I known the Spidey forums were this fractious I'd have joined in long ago.


There isn't any possibility that the producers chose Gwen Stacy as Peter's love interest without planning to ultimately play out her death, just as in the classic comic book story. There simply is no more powerful tale of tragedy and loss than the death of Gwen Stacy in the entire medium. Not to follow through on the characters' arc so would be to betray the source material completely, as well as to squander the dramatic possibilities afforded by it.


Some of the arguments in favor of gratuitously violating Spider-Man's iconic history by having Gwen survive strike me as ridiculous. She is a fictional character, not a real person, so wanting to see the story play out on screen is not "disgusting," nor are the people in favor of it immoral or bloodthirsty as some have implied in this thread. Think of all of the fictional stories that portray deaths and other horrible tragedies in the course of presenting an emotionally-satisfying (read: entertaining) story. Are Shakespeare's great tragedies disgusting because they show murders and suicides on stage? Many classic films and novels have death and its consequences central to their plots. Are they disgusting as well, or is it only Gwen Stacy's murder that arouses such a response? Those who still don't understand how such themes can be entertaining to an audience should research the term "catharsis" as it relates to drama and other art forms.


The Women in Refrigerators site has done a great deal to point out sexist treatment of female characters in comics, but regarding Gwen I believe that they tried to reduce one of the great stories to the level of the sort of hack work that gave comics an actual woman in a fridge. Gwen's death, seen in the context of the ongoing continuity, was the logical culmination of a long-running story. Norman Osborn's psychotic alter-ego had discovered Peter's secret identity long before. From that point onward, the Goblin represented a looming threat to everyone Parker loved or even knew personally. When Osborn finally kidnapped Gwen, it was the realization of Peter's worst fear: That his being Spider-Man would endanger those he loved the most. Her death was the tragically realistic outcome of Peter's decision to shoulder the great responsibility that his Uncle Ben spoke of. And his guilt in the aftermath echoed in a horrible way the guilt he felt after Ben Parker's death.


That is powerful stuff. It is tragedy, and it elevated Spider-Man's story above the empty and sometimes childish level so many comics operated on at that time.

maybe if we respond to everything Dagenspear says with this quote he'll eventually go away.

 

[mr. peasant]

Having just read the last few pages, I have to say that this debate is about as amusing as watching a bobtail cat chase its own behind. Had I known the Spidey forums were this fractious I'd have joined in long ago.


There isn't any possibility that the producers chose Gwen Stacy as Peter's love interest without planning to ultimately play out her death, just as in the classic comic book story. There simply is no more powerful tale of tragedy and loss than the death of Gwen Stacy in the entire medium. Not to follow through on the characters' arc so would be to betray the source material completely, as well as to squander the dramatic possibilities afforded by it.

I disagree. Rather, I'd say that by using the Gwen Stacy character, the idea of Peter's love interest dying almost certainly crossed their minds and the possibility considered. However, I wouldn't assume that her death is a foregone conclusion.

After all, bar the main universe, Gwen Stacy does tend to ultimately survive even when she's a main character. In Ultimate Spider-Man, she effectively outlived Peter Parker and in the animated series Spectacular Spider-Man, the creator has explicitly confessed that he had no plans of adapting the Death of Gwen Stacy story arc into the show. In the latter series, Gwen Stacy was chosen as a main character for entirely different reasons (specifically her status as a science geek, much like in TASM). Yet, in neither of these adaptations, Gwen Stacy's continued survival never came off as squandered potential since the respective creators came up with interesting things for the character to do.

In addition to that, the Peter Parker/Gwen Stacy romance is hardly the only subplot explored in the trilogy. As such, Gwen Stacy's death might wind up being unsuitable for reasons completely unrelated to it - instead, due to the other subplots and the direction the creator wants to take with those - and/or in the interest of time.

Some of the arguments in favor of gratuitously violating Spider-Man's iconic history by having Gwen survive strike me as ridiculous. She is a fictional character, not a real person, so wanting to see the story play out on screen is not "disgusting," nor are the people in favor of it immoral or bloodthirsty as some have implied in this thread. Think of all of the fictional stories that portray deaths and other horrible tragedies in the course of presenting an emotionally-satisfying (read: entertaining) story. Are Shakespeare's great tragedies disgusting because they show murders and suicides on stage? Many classic films and novels have death and its consequences central to their plots. Are they disgusting as well, or is it only Gwen Stacy's murder that arouses such a response? Those who still don't understand how such themes can be entertaining to an audience should research the term "catharsis" as it relates to drama and other art forms.

I don't think that's what's being said at all. Maybe I'm in the minority of the anti-"Let's kill Gwen Stacy" camp but my contention is with those opining that Gwen Stacy dying is the only way the character's arc can end in the TASM trilogy. As I cited above, there are a number of well received Spider-Man adaptations where Gwen Stacy didn't die.

Also, the part I find 'disgusting' is where people excitedly hope that she be killed off in as brutal a way as possible. So, you feel Gwen Stacy's arc is best served with the character dying. Fine. However, why the need to excitedly comment that ideally, it should be done in a gratuitously brutal fashion, is what I feel uncomfortable with.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I


I don't think that's what's being said at all. Maybe I'm in the minority of the anti-"Let's kill Gwen Stacy" camp but my contention is with those opining that Gwen Stacy dying is the only way the character's arc can end in the TASM trilogy. As I cited above, there are a number of well received Spider-Man adaptations where Gwen Stacy didn't die.

Also, the part I find 'disgusting' is where people excitedly hope that she be killed off in as brutal a way as possible. So, you feel Gwen Stacy's arc is best served with the character dying. Fine. However, why the need to excitedly comment that ideally, it should be done in a gratuitously brutal fashion, is what I feel uncomfortable with.

I don't think you understand the other side if the argument. no one is saying its the only way ti write gwen. They're saying its the way they want her written. The way her fate SHOULD be written

And again those who say "brutal" on here. Especially in a 3 or 4 word sentence... Are just joking by answering the title of this thread don't take it that seriously. They're not wanting her bloody beaten and raped to death....

 

[LegendAssemble]

I disagree. Rather, I'd say that by using the Gwen Stacy character, the idea of Peter's love interest dying almost certainly crossed their minds and the possibility considered. However, I wouldn't assume that her death is a foregone conclusion.

After all, bar the main universe, Gwen Stacy does tend to ultimately survive even when she's a main character. In Ultimate Spider-Man, she effectively outlived Peter Parker and in the animated series Spectacular Spider-Man, the creator has explicitly confessed that he had no plans of adapting the Death of Gwen Stacy story arc into the show. In the latter series, Gwen Stacy was chosen as a main character for entirely different reasons (specifically her status as a science geek, much like in TASM). Yet, in neither of these adaptations, Gwen Stacy's continued survival never came off as squandered potential since the respective creators came up with interesting things for the character to do.

In addition to that, the Peter Parker/Gwen Stacy romance is hardly the only subplot explored in the trilogy. As such, Gwen Stacy's death might wind up being unsuitable for reasons completely unrelated to it - instead, due to the other subplots and the direction the creator wants to take with those - and/or in the interest of time.

Spectacular Spider-Man didn't adapt Gwens death because she was a 15 year old girl. Thats not something they could ever get on the air on a childrens cartoon, ever. Even though that show was written well and could easily be enjoyed by a mature audience it was still first and foremost on a kids block when it aired and they couldn't get away with that.

Second of all, Gwen died in ultimate Spider-Man if I recall and the current Gwen is a clone no? Regardless, yes she still died there once too.

Third her death has already been foreshadowed. The whole point of Captain Stacy dying was for Peter to realize that easily could have been Gwen had she gotten her way and ran up herself. At the end he tries to make the hard choice and he fails asking to be with her anyway. By the look on her face she's going along with it. No it's not the only subplot but her living would effectively make the Captains sacrifice worthless.

Finally yeah they did. The fact is Gwen is not as popular as Black Cat or Mary Jane, both of which could essentially serve the same purpose Gwen does. She doesn't have any certain role that cant be filled by another female supporting character. So in short, yes they did plan on killing her from the moment she was chosen.

I don't think that's what's being said at all. Maybe I'm in the minority of the anti-"Let's kill Gwen Stacy" camp but my contention is with those opining that Gwen Stacy dying is the only way the character's arc can end in the TASM trilogy. As I cited above, there are a number of well received Spider-Man adaptations where Gwen Stacy didn't die.

Also, the part I find 'disgusting' is where people excitedly hope that she be killed off in as brutal a way as possible. So, you feel Gwen Stacy's arc is best served with the character dying. Fine. However, why the need to excitedly comment that ideally, it should be done in a gratuitously brutal fashion, is what I feel uncomfortable with.

Not one person said that they wanted her to die in "an extremely brutal form" and if you think getting thrown off a bridge and having your neck snapped is "extremely brutal" you sir must never have read the newspaper or heard of real world monsters. On that note how would that be "disgusting"? Do you find horror movies disgusting? We don't want to see the characters get murdered but it wouldn't be scary if they all managed to live, so are those fans "disgusting"? People are excited because its a powerful moment. No ones going to be clapping or cheering when she dies, it's going to be emotional, but really even if she did, she's a fictional character Emma Stone suffer any harm from it.

 

[PSYLENTGuardian]

In Ultimate Spider-Man, she effectively outlived Peter Parker

Technically, no. Gwen did die, but she came back through Carnage adopting her as a full persona. I guess it depends on how you look at it, but Gwen died there.

 

[Rogue Kira]

This is getting ugly.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Honestly, I would be anywhere from annoyed to spitting mad (depending on what they do) if they don't kill her. The potential drama is too good to miss.

I want them to make me cry. If I'm not at least thoroughly depressed then they haven't done the job properly.

 

[Duran Man]

I've never cried during a movie. Gwen's death may do if for me (but probably not).

 

[kewlmatto]

I think the genre is a little tired of Women In Refrigerators myself.

What I loved about Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was that she was never a damsel in distress.

Really, the Raimi series' Mary Jane is the real Gwen Stacy. Emma Stone is Mary Jane in terms of characterisation. It was just how the movies worked out.

I want her to stay alive as long as possible, but I'm aware that this is also a big story that would have some good drama. I just hope they do it right.

To those a little furious at people mentioning she shouldn't die, well..it's an option in the poll. So it doesn't seem off topic at all.

Still, my vote is FILM 3. Build up Norman Osborn in the second film and have a very emotional end of the trilogy. In the meantime, I want to see a powerful Gwen Stacy who is more an ally to Spider-Man than a woman who he has to save continually. Been there, done that.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I think the genre is a little tired of Women In Refrigerators myself.

What I loved about Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was that she was never a damsel in distress.

Really, the Raimi series' Mary Jane is the real Gwen Stacy. Emma Stone is Mary Jane in terms of characterisation. It was just how the movies worked out.

I want her to stay alive as long as possible, but I'm aware that this is also a big story that would have some good drama. I just hope they do it right.

To those a little furious at people mentioning she shouldn't die, well..it's an option in the poll. So it doesn't seem off topic at all.

Still, my vote is FILM 3. Build up Norman Osborn in the second film and have a very emotional end of the trilogy. In the meantime, I want to see a powerful Gwen Stacy who is more an ally to Spider-Man than a woman who he has to save continually. Been there, done that.

To be fair... Where have we seen a "woman in a refrigerator" in the sh genre films other than TDK ?

I can same several films that feature a hero losing a male role model or father figure..... (spidey has now had two uncle bens , capt stacy, daredevil and elektra both lost theirs, batman (lost his mom too of yiure but she barely had baby lines), ghostrider, this dealt with a father death though odin didn't really die.... List goes on and on....

I think the only ones that have focused in a mother / wife were punisher , blade, and magneto in fc .

I guess you can really force jean into that.... But that's really pushing things imo

 

[mr. peasant]

Spectacular Spider-Man didn't adapt Gwens death because she was a 15 year old girl. Thats not something they could ever get on the air on a childrens cartoon, ever. Even though that show was written well and could easily be enjoyed by a mature audience it was still first and foremost on a kids block when it aired and they couldn't get away with that.

There are plenty of ways to analogously 'kill' a character on a children's show - from having the character move to a different town/city/etc to getting trapped in another dimension to winding up in a hospital for a protracted period of time. All of which allow the same emotional angst to play out. However, Weisman has said he hadn't planned on using the Death of Gwen Stacy arc at all - meaning, there was none of that.

Also, there have been plenty of cartoons aimed at children that featured the deaths of children. For instance, the Star Wars animated series had Darth Maul wipe out an entire village of people, including children. Likewise, The Batman and Avatar: The LastAirbender too had young (teen?) deaths shown onscreen. Then, if you include animated movies, that list expands further with Prince of Egypt and Disney's Tarzan.

Lastly, it's not so much as question of whether they could kill her off or not but rather the fact that they used Gwen as a main character. They were not obligated to yet did so anyway, and saw value in the character for more than just her comic book version's death scene.

Second of all, Gwen died in ultimate Spider-Man if I recall and the current Gwen is a clone no? Regardless, yes she still died there once too.

In my opinion, she's only a 'clone' insofar as every other resurrected character not directly reanimated from a corpse is a clone. She's a perfectly normal human being with no special powers, and with the exact same genetic makeup, personality and memories of the original, and no idea that she is not the original Gwen Stacy. In fact, the most important part of Gwen Stacy getting killed by Carnage was less about her death itself but to ask that since she is in every way exactly like the original Gwen Stacy, who was it to say that she is anything but Gwen Stacy? With the story seeming to lean in favour of the idea that she is 'Gwen Stacy'.

Third her death has already been foreshadowed. The whole point of Captain Stacy dying was for Peter to realize that easily could have been Gwen had she gotten her way and ran up herself. At the end he tries to make the hard choice and he fails asking to be with her anyway. By the look on her face she's going along with it. No it's not the only subplot but her living would effectively make the Captains sacrifice worthless.

I disagree with that interpretation. It is all of one line in the movie and so can't really be called build-up at this point. Moreover, I see Captain Stacy's death as being the philosophical counterpoint to Ben Parker's death. Where Uncle Ben's death showed that not doing the right thing has repercussions, Captain Stacy's showed that doing the right thing too carries a cost.

As such, if anything, all of this leads towards the idea that Peter Parker's continued activities as Spider-Man might be putting Gwen Stacy in danger by association (where as not being Spider-Man might put her and others in danger for other reasons). How it ultimately plays out in the end depends on how Peter Parker balances the two costs (and the plans of the writers).

Finally yeah they did. The fact is Gwen is not as popular as Black Cat or Mary Jane, both of which could essentially serve the same purpose Gwen does. She doesn't have any certain role that cant be filled by another female supporting character. So in short, yes they did plan on killing her from the moment she was chosen.

Not quite. Aside from Black Cat being a vigilante/thief, one feature of Gwen used in the movie that doesn't feature with the other two characters is her intelligence. In the original comics, Gwen was very much on par with Peter in class.

Not one person said that they wanted her to die in "an extremely brutal form" and if you think getting thrown off a bridge and having your neck snapped is "extremely brutal" you sir must never have read the newspaper or heard of real world monsters. On that note how would that be "disgusting"? Do you find horror movies disgusting? We don't want to see the characters get murdered but it wouldn't be scary if they all managed to live, so are those fans "disgusting"? People are excited because its a powerful moment. No ones going to be clapping or cheering when she dies, it's going to be emotional, but really even if she did, she's a fictional character Emma Stone suffer any harm from it.

I actually cited a number of problem posts several pages back. As I don't personally like naming and shaming, I won't bother repeating their names here. Some people have commented that they were probably joking or being smartasses. However, none of these people were the posters themselves and so are assumptions at best. Short of any emoticons, admission by the posters in question or any other indication, I can only take it at face value.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Mr peasant .. The mere fact they haven't responded is because most don't follow this thread most have said one thing and left. Me thinks you need to understand an online forum like this more....

 

[Jick]

The Question this Thread is asking is" WHEN and HOW Gwen Should die", The topic is "WHEN and HOW should Gwen die" NOT If She should die.If it is Soooo important to get off topic MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD and save us all the trouble. It would be a shame if this thread got closed because some people couldn't do the very simple act of staying on topic.

When: Never.
How: In no way.
This is what everyone against her death is basically saying. It's as valid as the opposite argument.

Also, the creator of the thread made an option in the poll for Never. She shouldn't die. So it's up for discussion.

 

[Shikamaru]

There are plenty of ways to analogously 'kill' a character on a children's show - from having the character move to a different town/city/etc to getting trapped in another dimension to winding up in a hospital for a protracted period of time. All of which allow the same emotional angst to play out. However, Weisman has said he hadn't planned on using the Death of Gwen Stacy arc at all - meaning, there was none of that.

Also, there have been plenty of cartoons aimed at children that featured the deaths of children. For instance, the Star Wars animated series had Darth Maul wipe out an entire village of people, including children. Likewise, The Batman and Avatar: The LastAirbender too had young (teen?) deaths shown onscreen. Then, if you include animated movies, that list expands further with Prince of Egypt and Disney's Tarzan.

Lastly, it's not so much as question of whether they could kill her off or not but rather the fact that they used Gwen as a main character. They were not obligated to yet did so anyway, and saw value in the character for more than just her comic book version's death scene.



In my opinion, she's only a 'clone' insofar as every other resurrected character not directly reanimated from a corpse is a clone. She's a perfectly normal human being with no special powers, and with the exact same genetic makeup, personality and memories of the original, and no idea that she is not the original Gwen Stacy. In fact, the most important part of Gwen Stacy getting killed by Carnage was less about her death itself but to ask that since she is in every way exactly like the original Gwen Stacy, who was it to say that she is anything but Gwen Stacy? With the story seeming to lean in favour of the idea that she is 'Gwen Stacy'.



I disagree with that interpretation. It is all of one line in the movie and so can't really be called build-up at this point. Moreover, I see Captain Stacy's death as being the philosophical counterpoint to Ben Parker's death. Where Uncle Ben's death showed that not doing the right thing has repercussions, Captain Stacy's showed that doing the right thing too carries a cost.

As such, if anything, all of this leads towards the idea that Peter Parker's continued activities as Spider-Man might be putting Gwen Stacy in danger by association (where as not being Spider-Man might put her and others in danger for other reasons). How it ultimately plays out in the end depends on how Peter Parker balances the two costs (and the plans of the writers).



Not quite. Aside from Black Cat being a vigilante/thief, one feature of Gwen used in the movie that doesn't feature with the other two characters is her intelligence. In the original comics, Gwen was very much on par with Peter in class.



I actually cited a number of problem posts several pages back. As I don't personally like naming and shaming, I won't bother repeating their names here. Some people have commented that they were probably joking or being smartasses. However, none of these people were the posters themselves and so are assumptions at best. Short of any emoticons, admission by the posters in question or any other indication, I can only take it at face value.

Actually, there WERE plans to kill her off in Spectacular Spider-Man; just not in the TV show itself.

Greg Weisman's idea was to do a Spider-Man cartoon that covered his high school years in 5 seasons. After that, he wanted to continue the series through animated films that he said would have a much darker tone than the show and would deal with even more mature stuff. He also said Gwen and Peter's relationship was constantly evolving throughout the show and that Gwen was evolving too, slowly going from the geeky Gwen from the start of the show to the Gwen of the comics. By the time the series would have ended, the following would have happened:
-They would have been in college,
-Their relationship would have been just like their relationship in the comics.
-Gwen would have been exactly like in the comics.

The creators didn't want to wait several seasons to bring in Gwen Stacy or Harry Osborn or Mary Jane Watson. The creators didn't meet those characters in comics until Peter was in college. The creators wanted to stay true to it and ask, "What kind of guy would Harry Osborn have been back in high school?" Greg Weisman stated that "It doesn’t mean taking his college character and just sticking it in high school, it means extrapolating what he may have been like back then. Same thing with Gwen Stacy, and later with Mary Jane. We included those characters because they meant a lot in Peter’s life and were iconic." [2] As for having guest stars in the show, the creators didn't want the show to be guest star of the week. The creators felt that if they started bringing people in too early, viewers would keep asking “well, who’s gonna show up next?” and it would be a distraction from their main characters who are so interesting. Greg Weisman stated:

The Marvel Universe was basically built on the fly. Since we’re starting this cartoon from scratch, we have the luxury of building a more cohesive universe from day one because we know where we’re going to go with these characters and who’s going to come later.
​

The characters that the creators decided to put on the show came from some kind of source and were never intended to be original characters. The characters either came from the mainstream comics, the Ultimate Spider-Man comics or in the Spider-Man films.As for the characters the characters had to do some conflating with their introductions. They didn't want to wait to have Harry Osborn, Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson when Peter got out of high school (like in the comics) so they introduced them in high school and try to figure what they would have been like in high school instead.

Greg Weisman said he had no plans to kill her off in the TV show and that was because the whole TV show was supposed the "origin story" of their relationship. The DTV's that would have taken place after the TV show are a whole different story. Since he wanted to continue the series with darker and more mature storylines through those DTV's, it's pretty obvious the death of Gwen Stacy would have been done.

So even in the Spectacular Spider-Man universe, Gwen has died at the hands of the Green Goblin . LOL

Also, Gwen did die in Ultimate. Yes, she did come back as a clone but that doesn't change the fact that she died. Even if you were to consider and argue the clone is the real her, she still died once in the Ultimate universe. On top of that, even if she does count as being alive, Ultimate Spider-Man is supposed to be different than the Amazing Spider-Man and is not an adaptation. That is the whole point of it. TASM and The Spectacular Spider-Man, on the other hand, are adaptations. They're adaptations based on the Amazing comics (for the most part) so it would make sense that they would try to kill Gwen (or at least consider it) while Ultimate would try to keep her alive.

This is greatly off topic but I feel like this is the best time to bring this up. In my opinion, Ultimate Spider-Man goes as far as to completely change things and drop all the good parts of Spidey comics just to be different from Amazing. I get it that it's supposed to be a modern retelling of Spider-Man but it also changes a lot of things that weren't that dated to begin with. Examples are Rhino and Green Goblin. Was it really necessary to give Rhino a mechanical suit and turn GG into a generic Hulk copy? Original Rhino and GG aren't that dated to begin with.

 

[LegendAssemble]

There are plenty of ways to analogously 'kill' a character on a children's show - from having the character move to a different town/city/etc to getting trapped in another dimension to winding up in a hospital for a protracted period of time. All of which allow the same emotional angst to play out. However, Weisman has said he hadn't planned on using the Death of Gwen Stacy arc at all - meaning, there was none of that.

Also, there have been plenty of cartoons aimed at children that featured the deaths of children. For instance, the Star Wars animated series had Darth Maul wipe out an entire village of people, including children. Likewise, The Batman and Avatar: The LastAirbender too had young (teen?) deaths shown onscreen. Then, if you include animated movies, that list expands further with Prince of Egypt and Disney's Tarzan.

Lastly, it's not so much as question of whether they could kill her off or not but rather the fact that they used Gwen as a main character. They were not obligated to yet did so anyway, and saw value in the character for more than just her comic book version's death scene.

Apples and Oranges. You can't compare one animated series with one set of restrictions to another with a different production company. Given that the series was not even allowed to say the word kill, you can't compare it to clone wars or avatar. And using a character doesn't mean they "saw the value" it means they chose to use a character and still introduced Mary Jane. Also correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the series end with Gobby "dead" and Gwen and Peter separated because of his actions leading up to this? Thematically ring a bell?

In my opinion, she's only a 'clone' insofar as every other resurrected character not directly reanimated from a corpse is a clone. She's a perfectly normal human being with no special powers, and with the exact same genetic makeup, personality and memories of the original, and no idea that she is not the original Gwen Stacy. In fact, the most important part of Gwen Stacy getting killed by Carnage was less about her death itself but to ask that since she is in every way exactly like the original Gwen Stacy, who was it to say that she is anything but Gwen Stacy? With the story seeming to lean in favour of the idea that she is 'Gwen Stacy'.

Okay so if you someone kills you? Then starts wearing your DNA and acts just like you and honestly thinks they are you, does that make you any less dead? No.

I disagree with that interpretation. It is all of one line in the movie and so can't really be called build-up at this point. Moreover, I see Captain Stacy's death as being the philosophical counterpoint to Ben Parker's death. Where Uncle Ben's death showed that not doing the right thing has repercussions, Captain Stacy's showed that doing the right thing too carries a cost.

As such, if anything, all of this leads towards the idea that Peter Parker's continued activities as Spider-Man might be putting Gwen Stacy in danger by association (where as not being Spider-Man might put her and others in danger for other reasons). How it ultimately plays out in the end depends on how Peter Parker balances the two costs (and the plans of the writers).

Well no, because you'r argument actually supports mine that it foreshadows she will be in danger. If the writers had them coming back together using the word "promises broken" and they intended there to be no consequences then they haven't attended a single writing class in their lives. Yes in the sense of this film, Captain Stacy's death is to eco Ben's but looking at the big picture and the fact it was ALMOST GWEN, if she went up to help instead, you can see it does foreshadow his daughters fate.

You can't twist it into anything else, well you can, but it's pretty black and white and spoon fed to you. Even my Mom who knows nothing about comics asked me if Gwen dies in them when the movie was over, because of what he said.

Not quite. Aside from Black Cat being a vigilante/thief, one feature of Gwen used in the movie that doesn't feature with the other two characters is her intelligence. In the original comics, Gwen was very much on par with Peter in class.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in Ultimate wasn't Mary Jane really smart too? I mean aside from her father, Gwen doesn't bring anything to the table other love interests do. She was good in the movie, but that doesn't mean she needs to stay. If you didn't like her and dread her death, it would be ineffective.

I actually cited a number of problem posts several pages back. As I don't personally like naming and shaming, I won't bother repeating their names here. Some people have commented that they were probably joking or being smartasses. However, none of these people were the posters themselves and so are assumptions at best. Short of any emoticons, admission by the posters in question or any other indication, I can only take it at face value.

Okay I haven't seen them but I'll give you that since I doubt you'd make that up haha. Yeah thats kinda weird...