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

[LegendAssemble]

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.

Yoda and Obi-Wan both told him not to go that he was not ready and that he could not change the fate of this friends. By going to rescue them all he did was put himself in danger. Lando orchestrated there escape and Luke coming to rescue them had nothing to do with it. He learned that he was being immature and that he doesn't know everything and that he's not invulnerable. He had no control over Darth Vader being his father, but he did have control over when he learned that information. Peter causing Gwens death by refusing to grow up, knowing someone like the Green Goblin is out there, he's making the same mistake.

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.

Right, but there was a much bigger story going on. The story of Jedi is roughly about the Rebels attempts to destroy the death star and defeat the Empire once and for all. Luke and Vader was a subplot. You only saw Luke and Obi-Wan have one conversation about the fact he lied to him but other than that he just learned to accept it. You could have Peter touch on Gwens death, but the fact he's acting like a totally different person, is enough of a cue for the audience to know it's having an impact on him.

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.

I mean I don't see your point. It's an iconic story yes, but it's just another plot point. It doesn't innately become the center of attention. If it's the climax of the second film then it's presence is felt in the third but death is the end of everyone's lives, it's not like it becomes more important than the parents story just because it's a more known story. All you have to do is show Peter with a new love interest or female of any kind and showing fear of letting that happen again. He doesn't need to end up with the other girl but I'm just saying you can really just make it a footnote, especially if it's been long enough ago.

 

[LegendAssemble]

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.

The pacing of that just doesn't work though. If she's going to die it has to be sooner than later with all the foreshadowing. Plus you could use Goblin in 2 and have Norman be the villain for 3 (part of why I think he should live).

 

[©KAW]

The pacing would work out fine, there's plenty of time to handle it within two films.

And no to the idea of Green Goblin in ASMII and Norman being the villain in ASMIII, I mean WTF?

 

[mr. peasant]

Yoda and Obi-Wan both told him not to go that he was not ready and that he could not change the fate of this friends. By going to rescue them all he did was put himself in danger. Lando orchestrated there escape and Luke coming to rescue them had nothing to do with it. He learned that he was being immature and that he doesn't know everything and that he's not invulnerable. He had no control over Darth Vader being his father, but he did have control over when he learned that information. Peter causing Gwens death by refusing to grow up, knowing someone like the Green Goblin is out there, he's making the same mistake.

Yes, Luke had control over when he discovered the truth about his parentage. However, as you said, no amount of waiting would have changed the fact that Vader was his father. Meanwhile, if Gwen was killed because of her associations with Peter, a change in behaviour could have prevented it.

Right, but there was a much bigger story going on. The story of Jedi is roughly about the Rebels attempts to destroy the death star and defeat the Empire once and for all. Luke and Vader was a subplot. You only saw Luke and Obi-Wan have one conversation about the fact he lied to him but other than that he just learned to accept it. You could have Peter touch on Gwens death, but the fact he's acting like a totally different person, is enough of a cue for the audience to know it's having an impact on him.

I dunno... I always saw Luke's redemption of his father being the emotional core and point (which is different than plot) of Return of the Jedi while the attack on the second Death Star acting more as a Maguffin plot to bring the people needed together. The reason I arrive at this conclusion is because the movie showed and developed this idea. Meanwhile, they didn't explain how the death of the Emperor and his second-in-command miraculously and instantaneously toppled his entire government even though the Empire still had plenty of leaders, not to mention the rebels outnumbered and outgunned. If it was the first of several victories, then why didn't it end so early as opposed to the actual ending of the Empire?

I mean I don't see your point. It's an iconic story yes, but it's just another plot point. It doesn't innately become the center of attention. If it's the climax of the second film then it's presence is felt in the third but death is the end of everyone's lives, it's not like it becomes more important than the parents story just because it's a more known story. All you have to do is show Peter with a new love interest or female of any kind and showing fear of letting that happen again. He doesn't need to end up with the other girl but I'm just saying you can really just make it a footnote, especially if it's been long enough ago.

My point is that Gwen can't die at the end of the second movie only to never be mentioned and referenced again. Otherwise, the death is meaningless. It should have an effect on Peter - specifically becoming the pathos in Movie 3. Except, that can't really be done since Peter's motivations and the emotional core of the movie need to be focused on his parents as the latter is supposed to be the main point of the trilogy, the climax of Movie 3 would be the culmination of all three movies, and it would have had two movies building up to this one point.

 

[LegendAssemble]

The pacing would work out fine, there's plenty of time to handle it within two films.

And no to the idea of Green Goblin in ASMII and Norman being the villain in ASMIII, I mean WTF?

See this is an argument I can enjoy, because at least we both agree on her death haha.

Anyway my idea is Peter finds the killer and something leads to his death and after goblin kills Gwen he chooses to let him live and norman goes to jail, peter knowing he's still out there grows as a character. Then in the third film, he's more of a behind the scenes villain and dies at the end of that movie. I mean it worked in the comics so I think it could be done as long as the production isn't rushed yah know?

 

[LegendAssemble]

Yes, Luke had control over when he discovered the truth about his parentage. However, as you said, no amount of waiting would have changed the fact that Vader was his father. Meanwhile, if Gwen was killed because of her associations with Peter, a change in behaviour could have prevented it.

But it wouldn't have been as devistating a blow if he was ready for the truth and he didn't rush to face him. Not to mention he wouldn't have gotten his hand cut off and he wouldn't have begun to fall down his fathers path. There was a lot more going on than just him finding out Vader was his father. I say the stories are comparable because both are metaphorical deaths of innocence, and from there the adult is born.

I dunno... I always saw Luke's redemption of his father being the emotional core and point (which is different than plot) of Return of the Jedi while the attack on the second Death Star acting more as a Maguffin plot to bring the people needed together. The reason I arrive at this conclusion is because the movie showed and developed this idea. Meanwhile, they didn't explain how the death of the Emperor and his second-in-command miraculously and instantaneously toppled his entire government even though the Empire still had plenty of leaders, not to mention the rebels outnumbered and outgunned. If it was the first of several victories, then why didn't it end so early as opposed to the actual ending of the Empire?

Well if we're going by theatrical release then all we see is the rebels celebrating and the Emperor is dead so it might not have been a miraculous galaxy wide victory originally. Anyway, the core of the story was Luke becoming a Jedi, he just happened to go about doing so by redeeming his father. It's definitely the emotional meat of the film, but thats not to say other things weren't going on. If you kill her in 2 then in 3 you just have to have Peter come to terms by the end of the movie and come to terms with the truths about his parents. You just have to make sure each of the subplots fits into a set theme. Honestly death and morning doesn't detract from anything else going on. If anything it gives him more character.

My point is that Gwen can't die at the end of the second movie only to never be mentioned and referenced again. Otherwise, the death is meaningless. It should have an effect on Peter - specifically becoming the pathos in Movie 3. Except, that can't really be done since Peter's motivations and the emotional core of the movie need to be focused on his parents as the latter is supposed to be the main point of the trilogy, the climax of Movie 3 would be the culmination of all three movies, and it would have had two movies building up to this one point.

Yeah but by referring to her death, you aren't taking away from the parents plot. In real life things happen that are not expected and you have to cope with them. Trying to understand the loss of his lover and trying to understand the loss of his parents are not two motives that conflict with eachother. It's not like he's married to Gwen and now he wants to search for his parents secrets just to screw up his life he should be happy with.

 

[Dragon]

Well considering we already have a new approach on peter ...

He's no longer the stereotypical nerd. But more of a modern day outcast

But that has nothing to do with how he'd react to Gwen's death. Anyway, in the comics Peter had long outgrown the nerd persona when Gwen died. He was past that point when he started dating Betty.

And if the Death of Gwen in the comics got anything right, it was the characterization of Peter. So why would that be re-written anyway?

So again, the question is, what does Peter learn from Gwen's death? What does he carry away from it?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

But that has nothing to do with how he'd react to Gwen's death. Anyway, in the comics Peter had long outgrown the nerd persona when Gwen died. He was past that point when he started dating Betty.

And if the Death of Gwen in the comics got anything right, it was the characterization of Peter. So why would that be re-written anyway?

So again, the question is, what does Peter learn from Gwen's death? What does he carry away from it?

Well from my take on amazing, i really don't think peter has truly learned the aspect of "with great power comes great responsibility" peter never seemed to blame himself, his own actions of not doing anything to stop the theif who ended up killing Ben. there were several moments after ben's death he still acted irresponsible and slopy at hiding his identity. i think gwen's death in the movie can teach peter that very lesson. To keep those you love safe no matter the personal cost to yourself ..... id actually argue that in the comics this made peter to accept the idea that maybe she would have been safer either not knowing him at all... Or even actually knowing his identity.


That was always something interesting about the comics different between gwen and Mj. Gwen died and was unable to protect herself from villains. Mj once she knew, learned how to protect herself in the best ways she could.

In this film series... Maybe it not only teaches "with great power comes great responsibility but, also gives him sort of a complex in letting the person he loves know his secret? It'd be logical for him to fear that who he tells endangers their lives... So he would be extremely hesitant when his next love comes around.

I think that's different enough from the comics without being too far out there

 

[Dragon]

Well from my take on amazing, i really don't think peter has truly learned the aspect of "with great power comes great responsibility" peter never seemed to blame himself, his own actions of not doing anything to stop the theif who ended up killing Ben. there were several moments after ben's death he still acted irresponsible and slopy at hiding his identity. i think gwen's death in the movie can teach peter that very lesson. To keep those you love safe no matter the personal cost to yourself ..... id actually argue that in the comics this made peter to accept the idea that maybe she would have been safer either not knowing him at all... Or even actually knowing his identity.

Well, first, what you're talking about is a flaw in the script of TASM. Peter learning about great responsibility was covered in the comics and in the Raimi films. So this is another example of how this film got Peter wrong from the very beginning. And Peter shouldn't need Gwen's death to teach him the danger his loved ones would face in being in proximity to him. Any child would know that, and Peter is supposed to be of higher intelligence. And again, this is an example of how silly Peter's writing has become over the years, when he reveals his identity to the world, after having lost Gwen.

In the comics, it was a better story in that the Goblin discovers Peter's identity through no fault of Peter's which is what again- made the Goblin Peter's greatest enemy long before Gwen's death.

That was always something interesting about the comics different between gwen and Mj. Gwen died and was unable to protect herself from villains. Mj once she knew, learned how to protect herself in the best ways she could.

In this film series... Maybe it not only teaches "with great power comes great responsibility but, also gives him sort of a complex in letting the person he loves know his secret? It'd be logical for him to fear that who he tells endangers their lives... So he would be extremely hesitant when his next love comes around.

I think that's different enough from the comics without being too far out there

But this has already been covered in the Raimi films.

As I'd mentioned before, Peter really only has three choices in the wake of Gwen's death:

1. Quit being Spider-Man
2. Kill or incapacitate his arch enemies to ensure they don't come after his loved ones.
3. Never get involved romantically again (Although simply being friends with someone puts them in danger as well).

Since he won't do any of those, there really can be no change for Peter due to Gwen's death.

As for MJ, she's never been able to defend herself against Spider-Man's enemies either. She even armed herself with a gun and yet still wound up dangling from the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, first, what you're talking about is a flaw in the script of TASM. Peter learning about great responsibility was covered in the comics and in the Raimi films. So this is another example of how this film got Peter wrong from the very beginning. And Peter shouldn't need Gwen's death to teach him the danger his loved ones would face in being in proximity to him. Any child would know that, and Peter is supposed to be of higher intelligence. And again, this is an example of how silly Peter's writing has become over the years, when he reveals his identity to the world, after having lost Gwen.

In the comics, it was a better story in that the Goblin discovers Peter's identity through no fault of Peter's which is what again- made the Goblin Peter's greatest enemy long before Gwen's death.



But this has already been covered in the Raimi films.

As I'd mentioned before, Peter really only has three choices in the wake of Gwen's death:

1. Quit being Spider-Man
2. Kill or incapacitate his arch enemies to ensure they don't come after his loved ones.
3. Never get involved romantically again (Although simply being friends with someone puts them in danger as well).

Since he won't do any of those, there really can be no change for Peter due to Gwen's death.

As for MJ, she's never been able to defend herself against Spider-Man's enemies either. She even armed herself with a gun and yet still wound up dangling from the Brooklyn Bridge.

wait.. so it's a flaw from doing something different from the books, but doing gwen the same way in the books is not? I really don't get that logic..

I mean, you say it's a flaw, but what if it's the very reason it wasn't explored? what if they wanted that lesson to be taught with gwen this whole time? that really wouldn't make it a flaw, just a different interpretation.

and you confuse intelligence with worldly-ness and maturity. There's plenty of genius's out there who have absolutely no common sense, plenty of smart guys who have no street smarts, plenty of smart guys who know little about really what makes the world go round, and are socially some of the dumbest people on earth. He's also a kid...

right now, he's an incredibly smart and intelligent kid, a loner, and one that just recently was given a great power to do much good with. And at the same time have fun with it for the first time in his life. The responsibility angle so far from Amazing reboot is that he DID fee incredibly responsible for aiding in the creation of The Lizard. but it's not the same sort of responsibility he learns by keeping his identity a secret. you completely over-estimate what you think the average kid's responsibility is.. do you know how many kids wreck there car, or get sent to a hospital by doing something stupid?

we really don't know how Norman is going to find out peter is spider-man yet. All we know for sure is that they have peter parker targeted. We can assume they may know, but we really don't know for sure just yet. and to be honest.. peter still could have been much more careful in the comics at not letting anyone know.. i mean.. all people have to do is follow him.... pretty easy thing to do for some villains i'd imagine.

1. Quit being Spider-Man
2. Kill or incapacitate his arch enemies to ensure they don't come after his loved ones.
3. Never get involved romantically again (Although simply being friends with someone puts them in danger as well).

not exactly.....

... what if he quit being peter parker? I actually find that ideal far more interesting. If he gets lost in the spider-man persona (if the raimi films didn't do it.. it'd actually be a great way to also deal with the black suit, but alas... missed opportunity...) he could also get lost in black cat... who pretty much represents the ideal of "peter parker no more" especially considering she only liked him with his mask on....

i don't think he has to learn to "kill his enemey's" at all.. i don't even think that's a valid option. How bout just simply keep your secret a secret? and especially don't label a camera with you name on it...

as for you #3... this is more of my idea. it's a psychological road block he builds in his head. in his mind he feels he can never tell anyone he loves again, and risk never being romantically involved again. But... of course, someone comes along who can either A) handle themselves (black cat) or B) tears down his defenses, excepts him for who he is, and convinces him life will always be full of risk, but the greatest risks usually have the best rewards (MJ)

and... you're wrong about MJ. She's also taken a bat repeatedly to chameleon's head... she's handled her self against a few villains, but like i also said "the best she can". that doesn't mean she can suddenly defeat all of peter's super-powered threats.

 

[mr. peasant]

But it wouldn't have been as devistating a blow if he was ready for the truth and he didn't rush to face him. Not to mention he wouldn't have gotten his hand cut off and he wouldn't have begun to fall down his fathers path. There was a lot more going on than just him finding out Vader was his father. I say the stories are comparable because both are metaphorical deaths of innocence, and from there the adult is born.

And I feel they differ because one is a revelation about one's past where as the other is a tragedy resulting from one's mistakes. They aren't even opposites but completely different things; like apples and oranges. While both illicit reflection, the type of reflection differ. The latter has a 'lesson' that 'needs' to learned where as the former does not.

And while you say the news would have been less devastating had Luke not rush to confront it, I can't see how waiting would have made such a difference. Also, if you're talking about loss of innocence, Luke's had lost his for awhile now - way back in Episode 4 when the Empire came and killed his entire family, followed by Vader murdering his mentor and topped off when Luke himself killed thousands of people by blowing up the Death Star.

Lastly, while all of this was touched upon and explored in Return of the Jedi, this simply proves that Luke's coming to terms over his parentage and determination to redeem his father is the emotional centre of said movie and not the defeat of the Empire - which the movie either did not show (if the death of the Emperor did not instantly result in the Empire's collapse) or did not explain (if the death of the Emperor instantly resulted in the Empire's collapse).

Well if we're going by theatrical release then all we see is the rebels celebrating and the Emperor is dead so it might not have been a miraculous galaxy wide victory originally. Anyway, the core of the story was Luke becoming a Jedi, he just happened to go about doing so by redeeming his father. It's definitely the emotional meat of the film, but thats not to say other things weren't going on. If you kill her in 2 then in 3 you just have to have Peter come to terms by the end of the movie and come to terms with the truths about his parents. You just have to make sure each of the subplots fits into a set theme. Honestly death and morning doesn't detract from anything else going on. If anything it gives him more character.

Ah, see... this is the crux of my argument - that a movie (or any story) can't have more than one defining pathos (especially if said story is centred around one protagonist). The reason for this being the timing/position in the story where you'd want to put the climax of all of them would be at the same point in the story (think back to the Three Act Structure).

Putting two emotional foci at the same point splits the audience's attention, with one distracting them from the other. Moreover, it leads to the 3 questions I mentioned before - Is Peter's action motivated by both events? Does this mean the individual events were not meaningful on their own to motivate Peter to act as such and that he wouldn't have acted as such if either one event hadn't happened? If he would have still acted accordingly, does this render the other event pointless?

Yeah but by referring to her death, you aren't taking away from the parents plot. In real life things happen that are not expected and you have to cope with them. Trying to understand the loss of his lover and trying to understand the loss of his parents are not two motives that conflict with eachother. It's not like he's married to Gwen and now he wants to search for his parents secrets just to screw up his life he should be happy with.

However, this is fiction, not real life. More importantly, fiction is not an approximation of real life. Real life does not have pacing, arbitrary start and end points, or a grand master plan. In real life, lots of random stuff happen, there isn't always build-up, and tends to be uneven with lots of boring stuff (like eating, pooping and sleeping) between all the important things. Important 'supporting characters' in our lives die - sometimes without reason, very often 'off-screen', and rarely with some deeper meaning behind it from which you the 'main character' can grow from.

In other words, real life is not a good benchmark for what makes a good story.

 

[mr. peasant]

... what if he quit being peter parker? I actually find that ideal far more interesting. If he gets lost in the spider-man persona (if the raimi films didn't do it.. it'd actually be a great way to also deal with the black suit, but alas... missed opportunity...) he could also get lost in black cat... who pretty much represents the ideal of "peter parker no more" especially considering she only liked him with his mask on....

This just turns Spider-Man into Batman with red-and-blue tights. Especially with the Black Cat/Catwoman parallels.

One of my qualms about the idea about killing Gwen purely because of her associations with Peter in a short, finite story like a movie trilogy is this very issue. That it puts forth the message that in order to do the right thing and be a hero, Peter needs to shut his heart and isolate himself from the rest of the world and its people as reaching out puts these people in danger. Which isn't a very positive message at all.

 

[©KAW]

See this is an argument I can enjoy, because at least we both agree on her death haha.

Anyway my idea is Peter finds the killer and something leads to his death and after goblin kills Gwen he chooses to let him live and norman goes to jail, peter knowing he's still out there grows as a character. Then in the third film, he's more of a behind the scenes villain and dies at the end of that movie. I mean it worked in the comics so I think it could be done as long as the production isn't rushed yah know?

It's much better to build up Norman Osborn first, establish him as a ruthless business tycoon. Not to mention, it will be about 14 years since the Green Goblin is featured again on film (if he appears in the third film). I think we need at least another film without a Goblin and introduce another new villain.

You see, they have more time to finish up Peter catching Uncle Ben's killer and finding out about his parents. By the way, everything about Peter's parents, I want ended in ASMII. Nothing of his parents or Uncle Ben's killer should bleed into the third film (unless it's just mentioned) and not apart of the story. The way I see it, if you have a smaller villain in the sequel (Kingpin, Shocker or Electro) there's much more time to deal with both Peter's parents and Uncle Ben's killer. Green Goblin and the death of Gwen Stacy is a movie and a half.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

This just turns Spider-Man into Batman with red-and-blue tights. Especially with the Black Cat/Catwoman parallels.

One of my qualms about the idea about killing Gwen purely because of her associations with Peter in a short, finite story like a movie trilogy is this very issue. That it puts forth the message that in order to do the right thing and be a hero, Peter needs to shut his heart and isolate himself from the rest of the world and its people as reaching out puts these people in danger. Which isn't a very positive message at all.

.... Except the fact there was nothing really cat like about nolan CATWOMAN, she never made batman want to gave up being Bruce Wayne, and was not the fun party girl. The story is completely different weather you like bc or not.... That's not part of the discussion

 

[mr. peasant]

.... Except the fact there was nothing really cat like about nolan CATWOMAN, she never made batman want to gave up being Bruce Wayne, and was not the fun party girl. The story is completely different weather you like bc or not.... That's not part of the discussion

Not talking about TDKR (I would have specified that if I was to avoid confusion). Just the general Batman mythos - which frequently tackles the question of whether it is Batman or Bruce who is really the mask.

 

[Shikamaru]

Well, first, what you're talking about is a flaw in the script of TASM. Peter learning about great responsibility was covered in the comics and in the Raimi films. So this is another example of how this film got Peter wrong from the very beginning.

They didn't get Peter wrong at all. The message that with great power comes great responsibility is still there. In the Raimi movies, the idea was that Peter originally wanted to use his powers for self gain only to learn from not stopping his uncle's killer that he could have stopped his uncle's death if he was responsible. The way TASM did it was a bit different but the idea was still there. Peter has been picked on his whole life by guys like Flash, never had too many friends, and lost his parents with very few details on their deaths. He believed the world never had anything good to offer him thus he doesn't have to give anything back. He originally became Spider-Man to find his uncle's killer but as the movie progresses, he slowly learns the message of great power and responsibility. Notice how by the end of the film, he doesn't seem to still be so focused on finding his uncle's killer and is more focused on helping people because he has the power to. So instead of him learning that message because of and right after Ben's death, he learns it throughout the movie after he becomes Spidey. It's similar to the recent Batman: Earth One book that came out, where Bruce originally becomes Batman to find the killer of his parents only to realize by the end that Gotham needs Batman and stops being so concerned about finding his parents' killer and is more focused on being Batman for Gotham overall.

And in terms of character portrayal, intelligence, and personality, Andrew Garfield is miles ahead of Tobey Maguire (no offense to him).

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Not talking about TDKR (I would have specified that if I was to avoid confusion). Just the general Batman mythos - which frequently tackles the question of whether it is Batman or Bruce who is really the mask.

But Im talking movie media. That take on Bruce Wayne has really never been in much focus at all. Just playing on it like... In returns when catwoman says"are you the man or the bat" Im more specifically talking about a whole movie focusing on peter wanting to stop being peter. picture after gwens death it pushes him to (at the time) feel like its more fun being spider-man because he can ignore the heart ache of peter parker as well as the responsibility. felicia would not only inhibit this but basically peter is suppressing his issues with gwen death which... Psychologically really is something alot of people do.) he's basically running away from his problems an issues and escaping by becoming spidey full time. Felicia is perfect for this theme because she only liked him with a mask. By the end if the film peter would basically finally learn to cope with gwen's death by also realising no matter who he is and what he does... Trouble can find him either way. And that he is both sides of the coin and can not pic just one. He has responsibilities to both.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

They didn't get Peter wrong at all. The message that with great power comes great responsibility is still there. In the Raimi movies, the idea was that Peter originally wanted to use his powers for self gain only to learn from not stopping his uncle's killer that he could have stopped his uncle's death if he was responsible. The way TASM did it was a bit different but the idea was still there. Peter has been picked on his whole life by guys like Flash, never had too many friends, and lost his parents with very few details on their deaths. He believed the world never had anything good to offer him thus he doesn't have to give anything back. He originally became Spider-Man to find his uncle's killer but as the movie progresses, he slowly learns the message of great power and responsibility. Notice how by the end of the film, he doesn't seem to still be so focused on finding his uncle's killer and is more focused on helping people because he has the power to. So instead of him learning that message because of and right after Ben's death, he learns it throughout the movie after he becomes Spidey. It's similar to the recent Batman: Earth One book that came out, where Bruce originally becomes Batman to find the killer of his parents only to realize by the end that Gotham needs Batman and stops being so concerned about finding his parents' killer and is more focused on being Batman for Gotham overall.

And in terms of character portrayal, intelligence, and personality, Andrew Garfield is miles ahead of Tobey Maguire (no offense to him).

Ill agree to all of the above however i do feel the power/responsibility angle does need driven in much more and it should be a theme of the whole franchise. By showing different ways that comes across

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

The pacing would work out fine, there's plenty of time to handle it within two films.

And no to the idea of Green Goblin in ASMII and Norman being the villain in ASMIII, I mean WTF?

See this is an argument I can enjoy, because at least we both agree on her death haha.

Anyway my idea is Peter finds the killer and something leads to his death and after goblin kills Gwen he chooses to let him live and norman goes to jail, peter knowing he's still out there grows as a character. Then in the third film, he's more of a behind the scenes villain and dies at the end of that movie. I mean it worked in the comics so I think it could be done as long as the production isn't rushed yah know?

Yes yes! Can we puhleez start talking about this? Far more logical and interesting.

I originally thought she should be killed ASAP. Mostly because I figured "ugh this is gonna be another three movies that isn't nearly enough time to tell Spider-Man's saga." So I was like, "Gwen, die in ASM2 opening credits please, so MJ can show up and have a full film and a half to fall in love with pete."

Silly, I know. Because THREE FILMS CANT DO SPIDEY JUSTICE. So then I heard about the Sinister 6 rumors. (coincidentally I joined SHH that day and also s**t a brick. true story.) So anyway, third film sounds like a grand idea.

So ASM2: Peter (maybe with the help of Gwen) resolves the story of Ben's killer. Maybe he even kills him. Or "doesn't save him" same dif. More foreshadowing happens about Gwens death (she comes close to dying) and still Peter doesn't heed her father's warning. Norman Osborn is introduced and is a prominent character but he is not revealed as Green Goblin. Some other primary villain.

ASM3: Green Goblin is in full force. Slaughtering, exploding things, threatening people's families. Kills Gwen (Pete may or may not have an accidental hand in it). Peter comes close to killing Green Goblin. I mean dangerously close. I mean glass shards in face, swallowed all teeth and bleeding out the anus. But at the last second decides to be the bigger man. Maybe even to Norman's dismay (due to physical or mental suffering).

 

[spideyboy_1111]

the burglar/thief wont be the focus of any film.. he can't carry a movie... if it's continued at all.. it should just be a really really tiny subplot.

he needs his actual villains in the films

 

[Dragon]

wait.. so it's a flaw from doing something different from the books, but doing gwen the same way in the books is not? I really don't get that logic..

It's a flaw to get the character wrong, which this film did.

I mean, you say it's a flaw, but what if it's the very reason it wasn't explored? what if they wanted that lesson to be taught with gwen this whole time? that really wouldn't make it a flaw, just a different interpretation.

It's a bad interpretation. The thing that has made Spider-Man a classic character is that he gets all of this. If his being a moron that has to learn something as simple as protecting his identity is important for the safety of his loved ones, then the focus of this series is wrong. There are tons of stories they could've explored. Tons of challenges they could've given Peter. Revisiting a concept that was covered in Raimi's films, and handling it poorly is not the way to go.

and you confuse intelligence with worldly-ness and maturity. There's plenty of genius's out there who have absolutely no common sense, plenty of smart guys who have no street smarts, plenty of smart guys who know little about really what makes the world go round, and are socially some of the dumbest people on earth. He's also a kid...

But Peter does get it. That's the value of the character. That he was a kid, yet he understood the power that was in his hands. Yes, it took Uncle Ben's death to teach him that, which makes sense. But after that, there was no turning back. He didn't need multiple deaths on his hands to learn the simple truths.

right now, he's an incredibly smart and intelligent kid, a loner, and one that just recently was given a great power to do much good with. And at the same time have fun with it for the first time in his life. The responsibility angle so far from Amazing reboot is that he DID fee incredibly responsible for aiding in the creation of The Lizard. but it's not the same sort of responsibility he learns by keeping his identity a secret. you completely over-estimate what you think the average kid's responsibility is.. do you know how many kids wreck there car, or get sent to a hospital by doing something stupid?

Do you know how many middle-aged people do the same thing? Stupidity isn't an age thing. It's a mind thing. And Peter's sense of responsibility in the creation of the Lizard is more bad writing. The entire Lizard scenario was bad writing. First, you have the "world's foremost authority on reptiles" who, in the near twenty years since Richard Parker's disappearance, having made no headway in his research. You'd at least think that he'd eventually have caught up to Richard's theory. You have Peter presenting this algorithm that he couldn't possibly comprehend. You have Connors accepting Peter's presentation even though Peter can't even explain how he came up with it. You have Peter being again, a jerk- because he didn't simply credit his father with the discovery. Peter could never have imagined that the Lizard would result from the research- the way he should have known the danger of letting a criminal escape. And the Lizard's crimes were because of Connors' conscious choices, not simply because of anything Peter did. The two lessons don't link up.

we really don't know how Norman is going to find out peter is spider-man yet. All we know for sure is that they have peter parker targeted. We can assume they may know, but we really don't know for sure just yet. and to be honest.. peter still could have been much more careful in the comics at not letting anyone know.. i mean.. all people have to do is follow him.... pretty easy thing to do for some villains i'd imagine.

Once again- bad writing. Peter knows enough to wear a mask, yet he leaves his name on his camera. You see, the very fact that the whole story was handled skillfully in the comics, and in Raimi's film and yet Webb completely screws it up, only reflects how inept he is.

not exactly.....

... what if he quit being peter parker? I actually find that ideal far more interesting. If he gets lost in the spider-man persona (if the raimi films didn't do it.. it'd actually be a great way to also deal with the black suit, but alas... missed opportunity...) he could also get lost in black cat... who pretty much represents the ideal of "peter parker no more" especially considering she only liked him with his mask on....

No. You're reflecting a period of writing in the comics which was awful (And has yet to really recover from). Peter submerging himself in the Spider-Man persona is completely unrealistic. Peter wants, needs a life for himself. Spider-Man is part of that life. Peter is not part of Spider-Man's life. He still needs to earn a living, care for his aunt. He has his intellectual curiosity. If his life as Spider-Man is what he blames for Gwen's death, he wouldn't sink deeper into that life. He'd be more likely to abandon it.

i don't think he has to learn to "kill his enemey's" at all.. i don't even think that's a valid option. How bout just simply keep your secret a secret? and especially don't label a camera with you name on it...

Which again, shows how the writing in the comics (Stan Lee's era at least) was superior. He kept his secret. He didn't make silly blunders. He wasn't written to be an idiot as he is in TASM. The Goblin was simply that crafty. That dangerous. That is why he was Spider-Man's arch nemesis. And I said that killing his enemies wasn't an option that Peter would choose. It was merely an option he could look at in light of Gwen's death.

as for you #3... this is more of my idea. it's a psychological road block he builds in his head. in his mind he feels he can never tell anyone he loves again, and risk never being romantically involved again. But... of course, someone comes along who can either A) handle themselves (black cat) or B) tears down his defenses, excepts him for who he is, and convinces him life will always be full of risk, but the greatest risks usually have the best rewards (MJ)

Black Cat couldn't defend herself. Early on, she's nearly killed during the Ock vs. Owl storyline. And in the comics, MJ is nearly killed by Harry in his first go-round as the Goblin. Yet this didn't deter Peter from pursuing a relationship with her. And again- the point you bring up was covered in the Raimi films. Peter chooses to reject MJ in 1, then accepts that she can make her own choice in 2.

and... you're wrong about MJ. She's also taken a bat repeatedly to chameleon's head... she's handled her self against a few villains, but like i also said "the best she can". that doesn't mean she can suddenly defeat all of peter's super-powered threats.

The Chameleon? The guy who has never been a physical threat? Yeah, I'm sure she could take down The Rose as well. The point is that she's in danger from the majority of Spider-Man's enemies. The only reason she survived while Gwen didn't was just a few keystrokes from the writer. In fact, Gwen was written as being a tough customer. And having had a father who was a cop, it's much more likely that she'd be skilled in both self-defense and use of weaponry.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

the burglar/thief wont be the focus of any film.. he can't carry a movie... if it's continued at all.. it should just be a really really tiny subplot.

he needs his actual villains in the films

that wasnt my point. just that that subplot will be resolved in the second film. i suppose i wasnt totally clear. and then yeah, some other primary villain. if i had my way, mysterio and chameleon. but thats a different thread.

 

[Dragon]

They didn't get Peter wrong at all. The message that with great power comes great responsibility is still there. In the Raimi movies, the idea was that Peter originally wanted to use his powers for self gain only to learn from not stopping his uncle's killer that he could have stopped his uncle's death if he was responsible. The way TASM did it was a bit different but the idea was still there. Peter has been picked on his whole life by guys like Flash, never had too many friends, and lost his parents with very few details on their deaths. He believed the world never had anything good to offer him thus he doesn't have to give anything back. He originally became Spider-Man to find his uncle's killer but as the movie progresses, he slowly learns the message of great power and responsibility. Notice how by the end of the film, he doesn't seem to still be so focused on finding his uncle's killer and is more focused on helping people because he has the power to. So instead of him learning that message because of and right after Ben's death, he learns it throughout the movie after he becomes Spidey. It's similar to the recent Batman: Earth One book that came out, where Bruce originally becomes Batman to find the killer of his parents only to realize by the end that Gotham needs Batman and stops being so concerned about finding his parents' killer and is more focused on being Batman for Gotham overall.

Yeah. And that's all wrong. First, the points you mention about Peter from TASM being bullied and having no friends was covered in both the comics and the Raimi film. So Peter's motivations are the same in each incarnation.

And Peter in TASM was contradictorily written. He attended a science-based high school, so he wouldn't have been the science-nerd outcast. Everyone would've been science nerds (Which makes one wonder why Flash was there exactly). He's a good looking guy, he's got guts (Standing up to Flash) he's rebellious enough to skate-board around the halls, so his not having a girlfriend made ZERO sense. Especially in light of Gwen's OBVIOUS attraction to him from moment one. His parents were dead, yet he had a loving home environment. So his alienation simply didn't track. When he gripes to Ben about his father not being there it came off as more of Peter simply being a self-centered jerk.

Where TASM really veers off in the wrong direction is that by not having Peter immediately capture Ben's killer it swings into some ridiculous tangent about Peter being on a revenge kick. Capturing Ben's killer isn't only about revenge. It's still about bringing a dangerous criminal to justice. If he killed Ben he would likely kill again. The same with the Batman story you mentioned that I haven't read (Thank God). Bruce's parents' murderer is a MURDERER. He needs to be stopped regardless of Bruce's desire for revenge.
Just as Spidey going after the Goblin in wake of Gwen's death is about more than revenge. All of this represents a convolution of a simple concept. This is why this series is mishandled.

And in terms of character portrayal, intelligence, and personality, Andrew Garfield is miles ahead of Tobey Maguire (no offense to him).

Only to fanboys. Garfield is a fine actor, and I think he can make an excellent Peter/Spidey. But this film is bad and the handling of Peter is wrong. He's a jerk and a moron. We're supposed to accept that it would take 3 films (And to correct you, Webb has said it would be 3 films) to learn what Peter learned in 10 pages of the comics and the first hour of Raimi's film.
That's why this film didn't find much of an audience. That Garfield's Peter was more talkative doesn't make his personality better. That he was a "rad skate-boardin' dude" doesn't make Peter a better character. That he again, didn't create the web fluid, but simply made a spray device for it, and aped, then took credit for his father's discovery doesn't make him intelligent. That he acted more like Gwen's crazy stalker than a boyfriend (Showing up on her fire escape unannounced) doesn't make him more romantic. Tobey's Peter was likeable, sympathetic, believable, funny. Mission accomplished.

 

[AF3619]

His parents were dead, yet he had a loving home environment. So his alienation simply didn't track. When he gripes to Ben about his father not being there it came off as more of Peter simply being a self-centered jerk.

His Parents left him when he was like 4-6 years old so he knew them, and he loved them he loves Uncle Ben and Aunt May but he knows they are not his parents , when he gripes about his father not beeing there is because they left him with no explanation and he complained because beeing there because it was Richard Parker´s responsability and he wasn´t there for him and anyone knew why they left him
and all the beeing a jerk argument: he is not a jerk he is a teenager

That he again, didn't create the web fluid, but simply made a spray device for it, and aped, then took credit for his father's discovery doesn't make him intelligent.

Sure, because making a device to shoot a fluid that becomes solid and sticky really far is too easy for a fictional TEENAGER to make

That he was a "rad skate-boardin' dude"

for me the skateboard explained why Peter knew how to move so fast and why he was more athletic i know spiderman becomes agile out of the blue but this helped him develop better that agility
And my final argument: Nerds today aren´t the same as 50 years ago

 

[Dragon]

His Parents left him when he was like 4-6 years old so he knew them, and he loved them he loves Uncle Ben and Aunt May but he knows they are not his parents , when he gripes about his father not beeing there is because they left him with no explanation and he complained because beeing there because it was Richard Parker´s responsability and he wasn´t there for him and anyone knew why they left him
and all the beeing a jerk argument: he is not a jerk he is a teenager

Bull****. My father died when I was 3, and I still remember him and the night he died. I never blamed him for not being there, even though I both missed and needed him. And I know many children personally who had surrogate fathers/mothers for various reasons. And they regarded them as parents. A parent isn't simply whom you're born to. It's who takes on the role of parenting. That Peter was written in both TASM and Raimi's Spider-Man as an ungrateful jerk who didn't understand this is bad writing, since he certainly got that in the comics.

Sure, because making a device to shoot a fluid that becomes solid and sticky really far is too easy for a fictional TEENAGER to make

A web fluid and shooter from scratch? Impressive. A spray gun for an already existing web fluid? Not so much.

for me the skateboard explained why Peter knew how to move so fast and why he was more athletic i know spiderman becomes agile out of the blue but this helped him develop better that agility

No.. The spider bite does that.

And my final argument: Nerds today aren´t the same as 50 years ago

Only in that they have new things to focus on, and because characters like Peter Parker and real life rich guys like Bill Gates made them cooler.

But Peter in the film isn't a nerd at all. He's a kitchen sink character that had everything thrown in that the filmmakers thought would be appealing. He's a character created by committee.