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

[Dagenspear]

Also do Dagenspear you should just stop, you've pretty much told us that the only reason you even like Gwen is because your an Emma Stone fan, which is a stupid reason for her to stay alive.

It's like you can't not make baseless assumptions. I never said that me liking ES has anything to do with me wanting Gwen to live. In fact, I've stated that I've never wanted ANY version of Gwen to die. Raimi's, TSSM's, or Ultimate's. None. Personally, I feel like Emma's stifled in the film, frustrating me as a fan, and, if anything, kinda makes me wish they'd just end the character already, so she can go back to acting to her full potential... But... I have my principles, and they ALWAYS come before my fanboyism. Classic stories should NEVER be copied. I've said this over and over. It's perfect where it is, as an inspiring example of creative storytelling. And anything else would be a cheap and meaningless imitation. It's just not right. But, it'll probably happen anyway, so...

 

[Dagenspear]

On a side note: I'd really like to thank you all for this argument, as it has made me appreciate this story even more than I already did, thus only further reinforcing my belief.

 

[LegendAssemble]

I agree with this interpretation. However, I disagree that it won't distract from other stories. If anything, it guarantees that the third (and final) movie's climax will centre on this particular plot as opposed to any other plot.

Nahh if anything she's dead in the second. The parents arc will still be the focus of the third.

EDIT: I know a lot of people are saying they want her to die in the third, but it's just not something the studio is going to do.

1. For the reason you said.

2. Second acts of trilogies usually leave the hero in a dark place (ie. The Dark Knight, Empire Strikes Back, Hell Dead Mans Chest.)

3. If it was in the third it wouldn't make sense pacing wise. Captain Stacy's last words were foreshadowing this and the effectiveness is lost if the consequences aren't sooner rather than later.

4. The trilogy really shouldn't end with the "everyones dead" note, I for one believe Spider-Man shouldn't be a happy story, but it shouldn't be a hopeless one either.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

It's like you can't not make baseless assumptions. I never said that me liking ES has anything to do with me wanting Gwen to live. In fact, I've stated that I've never wanted ANY version of Gwen to die. Raimi's, TSSM's, or Ultimate's. None. Personally, I feel like Emma's stifled in the film, frustrating me as a fan, and, if anything, kinda makes me wish they'd just end the character already, so she can go back to acting to her full potential... But... I have my principles, and they ALWAYS come before my fanboyism. Classic stories should NEVER be copied. I've said this over and over. It's perfect where it is, as an inspiring example of creative storytelling. And anything else would be a cheap, useless, and meaningless imitation. It's just not right. But, it'll probable anyway, so...

Sooooooo basically you hate movies considering 90% of them are based on books, novels, comics etc..... And use many elements from them?

 

[Dagenspear]

Her dying in the third film will be just fine. No fourth film, please.

I agree. Beautifully tragic ending.

 

[LegendAssemble]

It's like you can't not make baseless assumptions. I never said that me liking ES has anything to do with me wanting Gwen to live. In fact, I've stated that I've never wanted ANY version of Gwen to die. Raimi's, TSSM's, or Ultimate's. None. Personally, I feel like Emma's stifled in the film, frustrating me as a fan, and, if anything, kinda makes me wish they'd just end the character already, so she can go back to acting to her full potential... But... I have my principles, and they ALWAYS come before my fanboyism. Classic stories should NEVER be copied. I've said this over and over. It's perfect where it is, as an inspiring example of creative storytelling. And anything else would be a cheap, useless, and meaningless imitation. It's just not right. But, it'll probable anyway, so...

I really find it hard to believe anyone actually believes that, especially since you'r love for Gwen comes before you fanboyism. Plus that begs the question of how copying the characters death is, copying a classic story. As I've pointed out many times, BY YOUR LOGIC Uncle Ben shouldn't have died, and Captain Stacy shouldn't have died.

So anyway I'm assuming you hated The Dark Knight for being a loose adaptation of Long Halloween.

 

[LegendAssemble]

I agree. Beautifully tragic ending.

No you don't you said you wanted the Lizard and Spider-Man to team up, SM3 style against goblin to save Gwen!

 

[Web face]

The thing about Gwen's death is, most stories about two people in love that are at least decent are taken, so they are going to be copying something anyway. If you are copying something, which is bound to happen whether it is killing Gwen or going another route, you might as well copy from the best (which I wouldn't really consider "copying" because this series of movies is based off of the comic that originally had The Night Gwen Stacy Died, so Peter having spider powers would be "copying" because it was first done in the comics.)

 

[Dagenspear]

Sooooooo basically you hate movies considering 90% of them are based on books, novels, comics etc..... And use many elements from them?

No. Not really. I mean, fiction is always copied in one way or another, nothing's new nowadays.

 

[LegendAssemble]

No. Not really. I mean, fiction is always copied in one way or another, nothing's new nowadays.

So you really don't have a reason for her to live besides your obsession with Emma Stone?

 

[Dagenspear]

No you don't you said you wanted the Lizard and Spider-Man to team up, SM3 style against goblin to save Gwen!

I never said that. I suggested that idea, among other things, but there's no point to this because you're gonna ignore this, like you did with the posts that I stated it in (a few of which were in reply to you) so you can have an excuse to be nasty to others.

 

[Dagenspear]

I really find it hard to believe anyone actually believes that, especially since you'r love for Gwen comes before you fanboyism. Plus that begs the question of how copying the characters death is, copying a classic story.

I love Black Cat, gotta thing for the bad girls, what can I say? I've also said that I don't like Gwen, but you ignored that too, just like you'll do with this. The death is that story. It's perfect and classic, and, most importantly, original. And that shouldn't be touched. Originality should always be encouraged in any kind fiction. Even, and especially, one that's based on previous work.

 

[Dagenspear]

As I've pointed out many times, BY YOUR LOGIC Uncle Ben shouldn't have died, and Captain Stacy shouldn't have died.

Captain, yeah. But Ben is an origin death, without that, the real story doesn't begin. Once the story begins though, that's where imagination can be utilized.

So anyway I'm assuming you hated The Dark Knight for being a loose adaptation of Long Halloween.

I don't read Batman comics. What did it do similarly? But, TDK isn't my favorite either way.

 

[Dagenspear]

So you really don't have a reason for her to live besides your DUTIFUL WORSHIP of Emma Stone?

Fixed. There's no need for negativity here. I think we can settle this without it.

 

[mr. peasant]

Nahh if anything she's dead in the second. The parents arc will still be the focus of the third.

EDIT: I know a lot of people are saying they want her to die in the third, but it's just not something the studio is going to do.

1. For the reason you said.

2. Second acts of trilogies usually leave the hero in a dark place (ie. The Dark Knight, Empire Strikes Back, Hell Dead Mans Chest.)

3. If it was in the third it wouldn't make sense pacing wise. Captain Stacy's last words were foreshadowing this and the effectiveness is lost if the consequences aren't sooner rather than later.

4. The trilogy really shouldn't end with the "everyones dead" note, I for one believe Spider-Man shouldn't be a happy story, but it shouldn't be a hopeless one either.

However, to kill her in Movie 2, for the death to be meaningful, as opposed to easily forgotten, the impact of her death on Peter will need to be explored in Movie 3 - which over-congests Movie 3's plot, as elaborated in my post that you quoted. Meaning, killing her in Movie 2 doesn't quite work pacing-wise either.

 

[PSYLENTGuardian]

However, to kill her in Movie 2, for the death to be meaningful, as opposed to easily forgotten, the impact of her death on Peter will need to be explored in Movie 3 - which over-congests Movie 3's plot, as elaborated in my post that you quoted. Meaning, killing her in Movie 2 doesn't quite work pacing-wise either.

How does it not work pacing-wise?

The impact of her death on Peter could easily be shown in the third movie. The third movie would just have to be about Peter coming to terms with the full extent of the lesson of great power and responsibility.
We don't even know the third movie's plot besides the likelihood of the Peter's parents and their further involvement in the story, so these themes and storytelling motifs could be used as a base. I don't see what we'd be over-congesting by doing this, because there's nothing there that's congesting it in the first place.

Gwen dying in the third movie doesn't feel like it works, because Peter would feel that effect for a very short last bit of the movie, and then the franchise would up and end, and Sony would take a shot at another reboot.

 

[LegendAssemble]

However, to kill her in Movie 2, for the death to be meaningful, as opposed to easily forgotten, the impact of her death on Peter will need to be explored in Movie 3 - which over-congests Movie 3's plot, as elaborated in my post that you quoted. Meaning, killing her in Movie 2 doesn't quite work pacing-wise either.

It can be done though. Adding a subplot that Peter is coping with loss, is pretty easy to add to a story with a plot about Peter dealing with a different loss. I understand what you're saying but you have to think that Peter coping with the loss can just the place of Peter falling in love. Just look to the original Spider-Man trilogy, Norman Osborn died in Spider-Man but his presence was very much felt through the sequels by Harry's behavior. There was a story being told and it was just a part of it, just like what the loss of Gwen should be in the third.

 

[LegendAssemble]

Captain, yeah. But Ben is an origin death, without that, the real story doesn't begin. Once the story begins though, that's where imagination can be utilized.

But you can use what you have as a skeleton and flesh it out in your own way, thats very much imagination. No story written by one man is perfect. It's a collective effort that paints a true masterpiece.

I don't read Batman comics. What did it do similarly? But, TDK isn't my favorite either way.

Harvey Dent, Gordon, and Batman work together to stop crime in Gotham and a new unpredictable killer Holiday who's got the citizens on their toes. By the end of the movie, holidays actions lead to Harvey becoming Two-Face. Theres a lot of small things that were recreated too but thats the gist of it. Basically replace Holiday with the Joker and you have something close to the plot of the Dark Knight. And also do you therefore think it's a bad movie? Because personally I'm not a huge fan of Christopher Nolan because I find his style very depressing, but it's a very well made movie none the less.

EDIT: It also takes place roughly a year and half into Batmans career just like the movie does.

 

[mr. peasant]

How does it not work pacing-wise?

The impact of her death on Peter could easily be shown in the third movie. The third movie would just have to be about Peter coming to terms with the full extent of the lesson of great power and responsibility.
We don't even know the third movie's plot besides the likelihood of the Peter's parents and their further involvement in the story, so these themes and storytelling motifs could be used as a base. I don't see what we'd be over-congesting by doing this, because there's nothing there that's congesting it in the first place.

Gwen dying in the third movie doesn't feel like it works, because Peter would feel that effect for a very short last bit of the movie, and then the franchise would up and end, and Sony would take a shot at another reboot.

The problem is the part bolded above. If Gwen is killed off in Movie 2, its aftermath and the revelations about Peter's parents would both need to play out in Movie 3. Except only one of the two can form the emotional core of the movie. And since the latter is what the entire trilogy has been building up to, it definitely needs to be the one. Making both emotional centres wouldn't work much the same way you can't have a solar system with two suns - not only from a pacing point (which one is the climax?) but it would also feel like you're telling two stories.

It can be done though. Adding a subplot that Peter is coping with loss, is pretty easy to add to a story with a plot about Peter dealing with a different loss. I understand what you're saying but you have to think that Peter coping with the loss can just the place of Peter falling in love. Just look to the original Spider-Man trilogy, Norman Osborn died in Spider-Man but his presence was very much felt through the sequels by Harry's behavior. There was a story being told and it was just a part of it, just like what the loss of Gwen should be in the third.

Perhaps; but only if relegated to B plot status - i.e. something that Peter only does and that only affects him when he (and the movie) has time to touch on it (a la the Peter/Gwen romance in TASM), as opposed to something that completely consumes him, forms his motivation and drives his action (a la Uncle Ben's death in TASM). Problem is... would that be doing the death and story potential justice? That he only mourn Gwen's death and feel guilty for his role in it only when he isn't angsting and focusing on his parents?

As for how the effects of Osborn's death was shown in both sequels of the original trilogy, it's important to note that it was very much B plot territory and it was through primarily through Harry, as opposed to Peter (it only coming up and affecting him during his interactions with the former). This is important as I believe that a character can/should have only one primary emotional drive at any one point in time.

 

[LegendAssemble]

The problem is the part bolded above. If Gwen is killed off in Movie 2, its aftermath and the revelations about Peter's parents would both need to play out in Movie 3. Except only one of the two can form the emotional core of the movie. And since the latter is what the entire trilogy has been building up to, it definitely needs to be the one. Making both emotional centres wouldn't work much the same way you can't have a solar system with two suns - not only from a pacing point (which one is the climax?) but it would also feel like you're telling two stories.

Like I said, you can just have Peter have a scene where he realizes his parents left him for his own good in movie two near the end after Gwens dead and it mirrors the lesson he learned in the movie. It's not a stretch to say that they did that either, I mean something bad happened and they got him the **** out of there! So the two arcs could come together to compliment eachother, Peter realizes how selfish and wrong both he and Gwen had acted, and how if his parent's were like them, he'd be dead.

Perhaps; but only if relegated to B plot status - i.e. something that Peter only does and that only affects him when he (and the movie) has time to touch on it (a la the Peter/Gwen romance in TASM), as opposed to something that completely consumes him, forms his motivation and drives his action (a la Uncle Ben's death in TASM). Problem is... would that be doing the death and story potential justice? That he only mourn Gwen's death and feel guilty for his role in it only when he isn't angsting and focusing on his parents?

As for how the effects of Osborn's death was shown in both sequels of the original trilogy, it's important to note that it was very much B plot territory and it was through primarily through Harry, as opposed to Peter (it only coming up and affecting him during his interactions with the former). This is important as I believe that a character can/should have only one primary emotional drive at any one point in time.

You really don't have to have morning as the only way to do it justice, you just need a solid lesson learned. The reason no one complains about Luke Skywalker being a very different character in Return of the Jedi is because he matured greatly from the events of the last film. Thinking he was invincible, getting the hell beat out of him/his hand cut off, and then learning everything he thought was true was a lie and his father wasn't a dead hero but a very alive embodiment of evil, had a huge impact on him in Jedi even though we don't see much of him angsting. When he comes out in the next movie he's a full blown Jedi and he's a great deal more mature.

They could just do the same thing with Peter. Have it take place a year or some time later and rather than have a crying morning Peter, have a full blown adult Peter Parker. Actions speak louder than words here.

 

[Dagenspear]

But you can use what you have as a skeleton and flesh it out in your own way, thats very much imagination. No story written by one man is perfect. It's a collective effort that paints a true masterpiece.

But doing the same story with the same result isn't just a skeleton, it's organs and muscle too. The Death Of Gwen Stacy was great to me because it dared to go there, it was bold enough to have the hero fail, and, to my knowledge at least, that had never been done before, it doesn't matter if I like the story, or think it was pulled out of their ass or contrived, or even if I respect the writer's reasons for doing it, it was a beautiful example of creative integrity, imagination, and originality, and I think to be put into any other medium would take away that aspect of the story, it would feel meaningless. This is one of the reasons why I think the third film would be perfect for it, to end a story, the story of a hero, in tragedy, I mean, that's never happened, it would give the story the relevence it deserves.

Harvey Dent, Gordon, and Batman work together to stop crime in Gotham and a new unpredictable killer Holiday who's got the citizens on their toes. By the end of the movie, holidays actions lead to Harvey becoming Two-Face. Theres a lot of small things that were recreated too but thats the gist of it. Basically replace Holiday with the Joker and you have something close to the plot of the Dark Knight. And also do you therefore think it's a bad movie? Because personally I'm not a huge fan of Christopher Nolan because I find his style very depressing, but it's a very well made movie none the less.

Personally BB and TDKR are a few of my favorite Batman films, and I do love TDK, but find it to be very heavy handed, and it just takes itself too seriously, without really allowing there to be a light tone in any scene. It's a great movie, but, it just tries too hard. I think the major point of creative license here is the villain, regarding TDK. I mean, certain big story elements are used for inspiration, but I doubt Christopher Nolan set out to make something similar to The Long Halloween, but just knew the story he wanted to tell and took from that story where he needed, and that's what making a comic book film really is, taking inspiration from the source material, but yet also doing what you wish to do, what you want to do, with the characters, and story, to do something completely new all on its own.

EDIT: It also takes place roughly a year and half into Batmans career just like the movie does.

Actually someone in TDKR area of this place pointed out a date on a newspaper in TDK, I think, where it's dated as being 2008. There's also other things I've noticed where there's a small child, a baby, in Gordon's place when he walks out to take out the trash in BB, it's certainly not his son, but more likely his daughter, who in TDK is about 4 or 5, so I think there's little clues to say that it's been longer than a year and a half, I could be wrong though, so don't quote me on that.

EDIT: Let's just be honest with ourselves here, and admit it's a concept of perception of the story, okay?

 

[mr. peasant]

Like I said, you can just have Peter have a scene where he realizes his parents left him for his own good in movie two near the end after Gwens dead and it mirrors the lesson he learned in the movie. It's not a stretch to say that they did that either, I mean something bad happened and they got him the **** out of there! So the two arcs could come together to compliment eachother, Peter realizes how selfish and wrong both he and Gwen had acted, and how if his parent's were like them, he'd be dead.



You really don't have to have morning as the only way to do it justice, you just need a solid lesson learned. The reason no one complains about Luke Skywalker being a very different character in Return of the Jedi is because he matured greatly from the events of the last film. Thinking he was invincible, getting the hell beat out of him/his hand cut off, and then learning everything he thought was true was a lie and his father wasn't a dead hero but a very alive embodiment of evil, had a huge impact on him in Jedi even though we don't see much of him angsting. When he comes out in the next movie he's a full blown Jedi and he's a great deal more mature.

They could just do the same thing with Peter. Have it take place a year or some time later and rather than have a crying morning Peter, have a full blown adult Peter Parker. Actions speak louder than words here.

Now see, I don't think your Star Wars analogy works in your favour at all. While it changed his personality, there was nothing for Luke to 'learn' behaviourally and coming to terms with it would have simply been an acceptance of facts of things that had happened that were entirely out of his control, were unrelated to him and that he was in no way responsible for; with no future/wider implications to take away from it. In contrast, if Gwen is killed as a result of her involvement with Peter, he would have had a hand in her death - i.e. the event was partly in his control, was related to him, and he was partially responsible for it happening.

Secondly, Star Wars did touch on Luke's coming to terms with learning that Darth Vader was his father; as seen in his confrontation with Obi-Wan (where Luke accused his former master of lying to him) and during the climax of the movie itself, in the form of Luke's attempt and faith that his father could he redeemed.

Yes, it is not specifically 'angsting' but it is still follow-through; which is what I've been getting at all this time. You can jump forward and skip to the part you want to tell. However, glossing over it entirely undermines the event and results in the problem of the easily forgotten dead friend that I mentioned before. Follow-through is extremely important to show that the event mattered and that the dead character was not simply discarded now that his/her role in the plot to catalyse action was done. Not showing Peter feel bad for his role in Gwen's death potentially makes him look like he didn't care.

 

[Shikamaru]

I agree with this interpretation. However, I disagree that it won't distract from other stories. If anything, it guarantees that the third (and final) movie's climax will centre on this particular plot as opposed to any other plot.



Of course, it bears mentioning that those two movies then spend the rest of its time showing the fallout of those deaths. It is this dedicated follow through that is needed in order for the death to leave an impact on the viewer. If no consequences are shown for the duration following the death, said death would feel inconsequential. Sure, the audience will feel bad/sad as they watch the scene but five minutes later, they'd probably have forgotten about it.



Yes, doing this would leave the sequel less congested plot-wise than TASM. However, it still results in the third movie to be even more congested; as it would have to deal with (the entirety of) the aftermath of Gwen's death and the plotline regarding Peter's parents. As the latter is the major focus and point of the trilogy, the former won't take centre stage in the finale over the latter.



Sharing focus during the third movie's climax would only weaken both subplots as each one would take attention away from the other. Likewise, conflating the two plotlines together into one (e.g. the person responsible for what happened to Peter's parents is the same person responsible for killing Gwen) also weakens the emotional strength and significance of each individual event as it muddies up his motivations. For instance, whenever Peter does an action (e.g. take revenge against this villain), the following thought process occurs:

1. Did Peter do this because of what happened to his parents, because Gwen was killed, or both?
2. If Gwen hadn't died, would what happened to his parents be enough to drive him to this action? (or vice versa)
3. If that answer is yes, does that render Gwen's death meaningless? (or vice versa)
4. If that answer is no, does that mean that Peter's feelings for his parents was not great enough to push him to this? (or vice versa)

The only way for it to work pacing-wise in the third installment is for one to turn into another (e.g. Peter's parents turn out to be alive and they (or one of them) is the one who kills Gwen; resulting in Peter's angst over their disappearance to evolve/be replaced by angst and guilt over Gwen's death).

Therefore, I contend that if there was ever a time to kill Gwen off in this trilogy (which seems to be focusing on Peter's parents' disappearance), it would have been at the climax of the first movie - with the second movie focusing on the fallout of her death and leaving the finale movie free to focus on Peter's parents - and that the opportunity (or at least, the optimal time) to kill her has now passed. Killing Gwen off early in the second movie is strategically and narratively unwise as it would reek of Sudden Sequel Death Syndrome and threaten to break the audience/fan base. Killing Gwen late in the second movie results in the third having too many plots to focus on; as would killing her then.

Now, if there was a fourth movie or a second trilogy, then that would be an entirely different equation.

Ugh. Why do you keep assuming the franchise will end as a trilogy? We've already explained 10 pages ago that if the franchise continues to be good and do well at the box office, that will not be the case.

Let me explain to you how Hollywood works when it comes to comic book movies (and sometimes this applies to even non-comic book movies). First, they begin production on a movie that is an adaptation of a particular superhero. Then they release it in theatres. If the movie does well at the box office and is critically received well (and sometimes it doesn't have to be critically received well; box office is enough but that depends on the studio), then they order 2 more films. Thus we get a trilogy. Then, if both the 2nd and 3rd films continue to do well at the box office and be critically received well, the studio plans another 3 films thus we end up with a 6-film franchise. Raimi's Spider-Man 3 followed this same pattern. Spider-Man 2 and 3 wasn't already in pre-production before Spider-Man 1. They were made based on the success of the first movie. Then after Spider-Man 3 came out, which did very well at the box office, Sony ordered and planned to make another 3 Spider-Man films thus there were going to be 6 movies in the franchise (which obviously didn't happen since the franchise got rebooted due to several factors happening between Raimi and Sony).

The Amazing Spider-Man is now at the first stage. It did well so now Sony announced 2 more films. No franchise is ever going to announce 6 or 7 movies from the get-go. Sequels slowly get announced overtime. If the first three movies do well at the box office and are well received, you can bet your butt the franchise will continue. Nolan's Batman trilogy is the one big exception because Nolan wanted a closed ending to which you couldn't continue from (at least with Bruce being Batman) and Warner Bros wants to introduce a less grounded-in-reality Batman for the future Justice League movie. Plus, we know that Sony and Marvel Studios are willing to work together since they agreed to have the Oscorp tower in the background in the third act of The Avengers, which didn't happen because the design for the tower wasn't done by the time Avengers started shooting the final fight at the end. This also puts this Spidey franchise at a great chance of joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The MCU isn't ending anytime soon so if that happens, Spidey won't be getting rebooted after the 3rd film for sure. It is very unlikely the franchise will get rebooted if the next 2 movies do well both critically and at the box office so saying that killing Gwen at the end of the third film will end the franchise on a sad note or that everything needs to be wrapped up by the 3rd film thus Gwen's death will be rushed are all very poor arguments.

 

[Shikamaru]

I personally think Gwen should be killed off in the third movie as opposed to the second because you need a movie that introduces Norman Osborn and evil corrupt persona. The great thing about him is that he is two villains put into one. There is the Green Goblin and then there is Norman Osborn. The Green Goblin is the villain Spider-Man has to physically fight and Norman Osborn is the villain similar to Lex Luthor who fights Spider-Man by not even lifting a finger - either by creating a villain/tech for Spidey to fight, using a group of villains against him (Thunderbolts for example), or turning the media/press against him. Because he is two villains put into one, there are a lot of things you can do with him. There are stories where Norman is the main villain and he doesn't even have to put on the GG mask. In fact, Norman was a villain to Spider-Man even before his identity as the Green Goblin was revealed in the comics. That is what I would like to see. TASM already foreshadowed him as being a mysterious man that is also very evil and corrupt, not afraid to do anything just to get his way and benefit himself. The second movie should continue that only now introduce him on the screen. He can be intentionally responsible for one of the villains Spidey has to face in the second film. Then in the third film, have him finally become the Green Goblin. Either that or you can introduce the Green Goblin in the second film (through a cameo or something) but not reveal him to be Norman till the third film. GG's identity was originally a mystery in the comics. That is why I think it is best to kill Gwen in the third film. Then after her death, have Peter act colder, depressed, and no t as in touch with everything (though DON'T make it emo like in Spider-Man 3) in the fourth film which would be the PERFECT time to bring in the symbiote and have him feed on that but that is a topic for another thread.

 

[©KAW]

The third movie is best for her death, the build up of Norman Osborn and getting more of Peter and Gwen together in the sequel. Then the killing shall begin after we have Green Goblin and a fully developed and meaningful relationship between Peter and Gwen. I say it should happen mid-way into the third film. A new villain, never used before should take center stage for the sequel.