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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stupid points there!

There not much to say here, The Death of Gwen Stacy IS considered an important event that shapes Peter. That's part of why its so loved and well known.

1. Whether Raimi did it or not doesn't change the fact that it's an important arc. First of all, Raimi focused on MJ instead of Gwen. Secondly, it's not as if his choice or his path is the definite and best one. Why do you think that? It's not Raimi that has the last word on whether or not Gwen's death is an important event. Also, his films were aimed more for kids. While Norman's death was pretty bloody, I really don't think Raimi would want to show Gwen's neck get snapped.

2. TSSM got cancelled prematurely.

3. That show was heavily censored. Sure, some characters died in it, but there would be no way to Gwen's death accurately with that censorship. Instead they made MJ get trapped in another dimension...

4. I'm not that much into the Ultimate series, but I feel that many changes there are changes for the sake of it, just to make it different (the reason I don't like those comics). Green Goblin's costume, mask etc. are extremely important to the character, yet he's a big wannabe Hulk throwing fire balls.

My point is that that single event is not an absolute necessity when adapting Spider-Man to a different medium/setting/universe in order to do the character and comic book justice. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that the above adaptations that I listed did not do Spider-Man right purely based on the absence of covering the Death of Gwen Stacy arc.

Just for clarification, although TSSM was cancelled prematurely, the creator has gone on record saying that he had not planned on killing off Gwen Stacy.

Also, I was referring to the Ultimate Spider-Man animated series, as in the one currently airing in which Peter Parker has only recently become Spider-Man and is receiving training under SHIELD, and in which Gwen Stacy isn't even a character. Instead, Mary Jane is the female lead.
 
Last edited:
This is a terrible argument considering half of your examples were canceled prior to anything resembling a finale, the one episode starring Gwen in TAS does in fact deal with her mortality in an alternate universe, and Ultimate Spider-Man isn't even Peter Parker anymore, nor is the series over (Gwen could very well make an appearance still... heh).

Saying the moment isn't translated often means nothing, except that Spider-Man has yet to be accurately portrayed in any other mediums.
Yes, applaud like the Romans did when they watched people get slaughtered. You a lot in common. And by accurately, do you mean mindlessly and uncreatively? Yeah, that sounds about right. Because that's exactly what it is, a stifling of creative ability. You and Oscorp see nothing beyond the box, nothing beyond what's already been done, just a close-minded viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
Gwen's death isn't needed. It isn't a necessity. It can be there, but it's not mandatory.
It's like whenever she is in a new media outside of the comics, many think she should die, like the character is fated to die.

She can help to shape the character in another ways if she is alive.
 
My point is that that single event is not an absolute necessity when adapting Spider-Man to a different medium/setting/universe in order to do the character and comic book justice. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that the above adaptations that I listed did not do Spider-Man right purely based on the absence of covering the Death of Gwen Stacy arc.

Just for clarification, although TSSM was cancelled prematurely, the creator has gone on record saying that he had not planned on killing off Gwen Stacy.

Also, I was referring to the Ultimate Spider-Man animated series, as in the one currently airing in which Peter Parker has only recently become Spider-Man and is receiving training under SHIELD, and in which Gwen Stacy isn't even a character. Instead, Mary Jane is the female lead.

Ah I see! Sorry for calling your points stupid btw, I was a little hot headed there. But I get now what you mean and I agree that it's definitely not a must, as Jick09 put it, it's not a necessity.

What I initially thought you meant was that the event itself wasn't important and didn't help much in shaping Peter, which I thought was ridiculous. But sure, not every media has to include that part, there's no definite rule.

However, I must add that for this trilogy, I think everything seems to lead up to her classic death. Therefore, it would be an awful waste of opportunity not to do it. I think that if we won't see it in ASM2 or 3, we will not see it for many, many, many years because the next reboot would probably start off with Peter's adult life with MJ right off the bat to not be too similar to this one.

Seeing Gwen's death done exactly like the comics has the potential to be one of the most emotional CBM stuff ever on the big screen, maybe even one of the most emotional scenes in general. It's one of the best comic book moments ever, so I'd hate if they skip it now.
 
Gwen's death doesn't do a damn thing that's neccesary. Please, explain to me this mythical character development that's so vital. Batman was Batman before Jason Todd's death. Just like Spider-Man was Spider-Man before Gwen's. The only "development" it offers is eating away at their souls, degrading them until they become the type of people who sell their marriage and unborn baby to the devil. You want that too? It's a big part of his character. Jason's death, like Gwen's, is NOT neccesary. And would ya look at that? There's 2 film franchises and a cartoon series to back me up.

First, I want to say that I never said her death is necessary. I just said her death would be a huge and I mean a HUGE waste of potential to make a brilliant Spider-Man film and bring in so many greater ideas in the sequels. Second, did you just compare the death of Gwen Stacy to Quesada's decision to make him make a deal with the devil? They're two completely different things. Spidey making a deal with the devil goes against his character and themes overall (portraying him as very irresponsible by making the deal), butchers almost 20 years of continuity and screws up the Spidey universe to the point where nothing made sense for a while and a lot still doesn't make sense even now. Gwen's death didn't do any of that. It was a huge moment in Peter's life. It made him reflect on his emotions and on whether or not he is allowed to have a love life while still fulfilling his responsibilities as Spider-Man. It made him a better and stronger hero. He had to learn and fight to protect his loved ones harder in order to avoid anyone else getting killed like Gwen. It brought in the personal conflict of whether or not Gwen's death was his fault (which still goes on today). It tested Spider-Man as a hero. He wanted to kill the Green Goblin for what he did but had to find the strength in him to control himself so that he doesn't become the villain he always fights against. It also further developed the Green Goblin as a villain and showed how intimidating and dangerous he is. It showed how messed up Norman is mentally and how much he likes to screw with Peter (which he constantly does throughout the comics). It is almost an insult to compare the death of Gwen to One More Day. And stories like these (death of Gwen and death of Jason) by no means "eat away at the character's souls". They further develop superheroes and show how hard the life of a superhero is. Sorry to break it to you but we are no longer in the Silver Age where superheroes were all perfect people that fought crime, had no flaws and never made mistakes. It sounds to me like that is what you want from Marvel and DC stories. It's not happening ever again. Comics have matured and evolved from that stage.

There's 2 film franchises and a cartoon series to back me up.
2 film franchises? The second Spider-Man franchise JUST started. Obviously they won't kill her off in the first movie so that argument fails. Gwen wasn't even a love interest in the Raimi movies but just a chick they randomly threw in so that they could have someone Peter could use to make MJ jealous after their breakup. So that franchise doesn't count either. The Spectacular Spider-Man was cancelled prematurely and if you watch the show, Gwen and Peter only revealed their feelings for each other in the last episode. Their relationship was still being developed and the entire series by the last episode of season 2 took place in the span of 7 months. Had the show gotten more seasons, we would have seen Gwen and Peter's relationship evolve and reach that point. All 3 are piss-poor examples and don't back you up at all.
 
Last edited:
Except, let's look at the track record of this seemingly 'important' event that 'shapes Peter as a character':

1. Did it happen in Raimi's Spider-Man, or anything similar to it? No
2. Did it happen in Spectacular Spider-Man, or were there plans for it to happen? No
3. Did it happen in the original Spider-Man, TAS from the 1990s? No
4. Is it likely to happen in the Ultimate Spider-Man animated series? No, because she's not there.

For such a seemingly character-defining moment, it sure isn't translated often, is it?


Likewise, let's consider a couple major moments in Batman's history:

1. The death of Todd/any Robin: Hasn't been translated in any major adaptation.
2. The very introduction of Robin or any partner/mentee figure: Not every adaptation has one.


Yes, all of this can be used to make the argument that Gwen should then be killed in this adaptation as it would be something 'fresh' and 'different' but that's a far cry from being a necessary element to include.

Never said it HAS to happen or that it's necessary. I just said there would be so much potential wasted if they don't do it.

1) Gwen wasn't a love interest in the Raimi movies at all. Something similar DID happen and it was the bridge scene with MJ in the first movie. Raimi didn't kill her off though because it was the first film, the films were also targeted at kids, and he had enough respect for the source that he understood that MJ dying wouldn't have the same impact on the fans as Gwen dying simply because it wasn't Gwen, even though the scene was very similar. As for Gwen herself in the Raimi films, she had no reason to die because she wasn't a love interest and was just thrown in the third film to have a forced triangle that didn't work at all and to give Peter a chick he could use to make MJ jealous.

2) It didn't happen in Spectacular Spider-Man because the show was cancelled prematurely. And there WERE plans to have it done. Greg Weisman said there weren't plans to kill her off in the SHOW but once the show was finished, he wanted to continue the series through straight direct-to-video animated films and said he wanted to make them even darker and more mature than the show was. I bet you Gwen's death would have been one of the stories done. :)

3) It DID happen in the original 90s Spider-Man. That is why Gwen was never around throughout the show; she was already dead. They just couldn't address it because of the ridiculous censorship the show was put through. If you watch the last episode, Peter travels to a parallel universe where his alternate version has the perfect life Peter always wanted and is married to Gwen. When Peter (from the show's main dimension) sees Gwen, he yells "Gwen! You're alive!" Which means Gwen did die before the events of season 1 took place.

4) You answered your own question. No because she's not there. There is not much for me to say :/.

As for Batman, every adaptation with Robin in it falls in one of these categories:
1) In the case of live-action, we have yet to get a good Robin. Once we get a good Robin, we can do something similar to the death of Jason if Jason is brought into the films.
2) In the case of the animated stuff, Jason doesn't exist to begin with and there is no point in killing off Dick or Tim. Jason has only been used in Under the Red Hood so far, where he was killed.
 
Last edited:
3) It DID happen in the original 90s Spider-Man. That is why Gwen was never around throughout the show; she was already dead. They just couldn't address it because of the ridiculous censorship the show was put through. If you watch the last episode, Peter travels to a parallel universe where his alternate version has the perfect life Peter always wanted and is married to Gwen. When Peter (from the show's main dimension) sees Gwen, he yells "Gwen! You're alive!" Which means Gwen did die before the events of season 1 took place.

this is actually false.... i remember that episode clearly, and he has no idea who gwen is in it....

Gwen Stacy was deliberately excluded from the 1990s animated series, as the creators felt they could neither allow her to live nor deliberately include a character who was going to die. As a result, a variant of the bridge scene occurs with Gwen replaced by Mary Jane. Both Mary Jane and Green Goblin are cast into a dimensional void in the forty-first episode of the series. Gwen Stacy did appear in the episode "Farewell Spider-Man" voiced by Mary Kay Bergman. She appears as the fiancée of the high-tech armored Spider-Man (resembling Iron Man) from another universe.

and who exactly would have killed her? we saw his first battles with 99% of his villains.
 
2 film franchises? The second Spider-Man franchise JUST started. Obviously they won't kill her off in the first movie so that argument fails. Gwen wasn't even a love interest in the Raimi movies but just a chick they randomly threw in so that they could have someone Peter could use to make MJ jealous after their breakup. So that franchise doesn't count either. The Spectacular Spider-Man was cancelled prematurely and if you watch the show, Gwen and Peter only revealed their feelings for each other in the last episode. Their relationship was still being developed and the entire series by the last episode of season 2 took place in the span of 7 months. Had the show gotten more seasons, we would have seen Gwen and Peter's relationship evolve and reach that point. All 3 are piss-poor examples and don't back you up at all.
Please pay attention to my post.
Jason's death, like Gwen's, is NOT neccesary. And would ya look at that? There's 2 film franchises and a cartoon series to back me up.
I was clearly referring to Jason Todd's death, in comparison to Gwen's. NOT Gwen's.
 
Second, did you just compare the death of Gwen Stacy to Quesada's decision to make him make a deal with the devil? They're two completely different things. Spidey making a deal with the devil goes against his character and themes overall (portraying him as very irresponsible by making the deal), butchers almost 20 years of continuity and screws up the Spidey universe to the point where nothing made sense for a while and a lot still doesn't make sense even now.
I didn't compare anything. I stated that **** like this is why Peter became the type of person who does that. And Peter ISN'T responsible, and that deal is actually perfectly in-character. Sure, not the idealized, responsible character you've created in your mind, but the emotionally destroyed character, whose soul has been decayed through years of self-blame, self-loathing, and guilt. Gwen's death is niether brilliant, nor needed, the whole reason it was done in the first place was so Peter could hook up with MJ, which is disgusting by the way.
 
Let's just remember that this is a discussion about a movie....not debating a Middle East Peace Plan here....


Thanks... : )
 
The_Amazing_Spider_Man_poster_Spider_Man_and_Gwen_Stacy_620x380.jpg

Spidey: I'm going to throw you out the window now.
Gwen: Wh-!?!?!?!?

Spider-Man-Gwen-Death.jpg


20470945.jpg
 
Something to consider about the whole Death of Gwen Stacy arc that I haven't really seen brought up yet:

Yes, it is a major and big storyline. However, has anyone considered that it might be too big a subplot to be adapted properly in the current trilogy? Unlike comic books, there is a limited amount of time. Currently, we already have ongoing subplots regarding The Man In Shadow/the mystery of Peter's parents as well as (in all likelihood) Osborn's deteriorating health and descent into full blown villainy. Adding to that, we probably should be seeing a reunion between Peter and Uncle Ben's killer.

That's already three subplots that need revisiting and development over the course of the next two movies. Adding Gwen Stacy's death would take a lot of time away from all of this in and risks either cutting short or outright aborting one of the above storylines that have already started. Too many subplots at once results in the movie being unable to give adequate development to them all.
 
You know I just read the character bio for Jackal for the first time when he tries to make a clone of her for the first time. He would be an interesting character to have after she would die in the second film. Whether the Green Goblin kills her or not is another matter entirely. It could be someone like Electro for all that matters.
 
They should kill her as soon as possible. Maybe not the beginning of the next film, but at the most halfway through. You can have big character deaths at the end of a film, but then we'd have to wait two years for the pay-off of seeing Peter deal with it and learn from it, and by that point the event has lost some of its impact. Halfway through the second I'd say.
 
They should kill her as soon as possible. Maybe not the beginning of the next film, but at the most halfway through. You can have big character deaths at the end of a film, but then we'd have to wait two years for the pay-off of seeing Peter deal with it and learn from it, and by that point the event has lost some of its impact. Halfway through the second I'd say.
maybe result of his first/second fight with Green Goblin
 
They should kill her as soon as possible. Maybe not the beginning of the next film, but at the most halfway through. You can have big character deaths at the end of a film, but then we'd have to wait two years for the pay-off of seeing Peter deal with it and learn from it, and by that point the event has lost some of its impact. Halfway through the second I'd say.

Nah... I think it should be like the ending to Empire Strikes Back. Maybe 2 & 3 could be shot back to back even?
 
Let's just remember that this is a discussion about a movie....not debating a Middle East Peace Plan here....


Thanks... : )
What are you referring to? I believe Dagenspear and mr. peasant have some very valid points if that's what you're referring to.
 
They dont HAVE to Kill Gwen.
And , I hope they choose not to.
 
Nah... I think it should be like the ending to Empire Strikes Back. Maybe 2 & 3 could be shot back to back even?
Problem is that the 2nd film could be rushed as it is. They would have to be in the process of making the 3rd one now, which could ruin everything.
 
They dont HAVE to Kill Gwen.
And , I hope they choose not to.

If they choose not to kill off Gwen, then they would have missed another great opportunity for something big & epic... and impactful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"