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

[spideyboy_1111]

You can't state preference and opinion as fact, which is what's been happening with this whole Gwen's death thing.

Wanting something to happen is not the same as saying 'This is how it's * GOING * to happen' or 'This is the only way it * CAN * happen.

But what your asking is "reasons it should be in the third film" and people are listing them! there's nothing black and white, so take in peoples opinions or quit asking

 

[spideyboy_1111]

As a self-proclaimed Venom fan (could you tell? ), I believe a well-done Venom runs his course as a villain the moment that Peter defeats him. Venom is a living personification of Peter's faults, of Peter's dark side. It's the final hurdle that Peter has to overcome in the symbiote saga, an externalization of all his doubts and fears about himself. Once he can stand up to Venom and defeat him, there's no real reason for Venom to exist anymore.

Agrees. Though part of me would love to see maximum carnage on film.... But that will never happen

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I wouldn't get your hopes up. That Venom movie is going to remain in pre-production Hell for a long time.

Hopefully.... If it were to happen, alot has got to happen first. They can do that after peter defeats him and he can go through a carnage arc by himself. Venom vs carnage and the vault would work. But venom would need established properly first

 

[DigificWriter]

But what your asking is "reasons it should be in the third film" and people are listing them! there's nothing black and white, so take in peoples opinions or quit asking

Actually, what I'm asking for is why her death absolutely cannot happen in any other film but TASM 2.

Everyone keeps using the word 'should', which pretty much says 'This has to happen this way and can't happen any other way'.

 

[Eddie Brock]

Actually, what I'm asking for is why her death absolutely cannot happen in any other film but TASM 2.

Everyone keeps using the word 'should', which pretty much says 'This has to happen this way and can't happen any other way'.

... we have a very different understanding of "should," my friend.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ The third listed definition for the word 'should' is "must".

Therefore, using the word in the context of this whole thing re: Gwen's death is saying that her death MUST happen in Film 2.

 

[Eddie Brock]

^ The third listed definition for the word 'should' is "must".

Therefore, using the word in the context of this whole thing re: Gwen's death is saying that her death MUST happen in Film 2.

But do you honestly believe that's how people are using it? I know I'm guilty of using some of the strongest language on this topic, but even when I say it: should = "it would be better if", whereas must = "it will bad if not".

EDIT: I think I have used must, though, in an effort to over-emphasize. Do as I say, not as I do.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

^ The third listed definition for the word 'should' is "must".

Therefore, using the word in the context of this whole thing re: Gwen's death is saying that her death MUST happen in Film 2.

Fine....
They MUST kill Gwen in the 2nd act of the trilogy to leave room for the conclusion of the goblin arc in the third film and they MUST also leave enough room to wrap up his parents mystery and they MUST show the fallout of gwens death which WILL NOT fit into the same film as her death. The third film will also HAVE TO plant some small seeds for the next trilogy (like hinting at MJ and Peters relationship) ending the first trilogy on a high note so it's left clean in case there's no fourth film

There I can play that game. I see no way around it therefore I see it as FACT

 

[I Am The Knight]

This is getting silly.

 

[PSYLENTGuardian]

(Luckily this series isn't based off books and has no logical reason for doing this)

Well... it's based off comic books t: I get what you mean though.

I'm with Eddie Brock -- it's just more prudent to plan for a trilogy, as much as I'd love a fourth movie.

Peter's ready to break his promise to leave Gwen out, but what he's also doing is letting Gwen in just to protect her.
I'm going to digress for a second, but this is really to reflect on what the dynamic might become for the second movie.
This is what I think is what Peter probably misses in the grand scheme of the "great power, great responsibility" lesson, and what he's going to learn in the sequel. He's not misusing his powers or anything like that anymore, but ultimately, his inherent sense of confidence is going to kill Gwen. Peter's confident that he can still be Spider-Man and still bond with Gwen, with her knowing his identity and becoming a liability.

I'm going to enter some different territory to keep going with this point. Both Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight explored this little motif of heroes with desires that need to be given up. And you can argue that this motif can be present at the end of the arc, but the thing is, Spider-Man can't complete his arc if he makes one of the biggest mistakes of his life. You don't end with that in a third movie and not even consider a fourth movie.

A movie following the death of Gwen Stacy has to be the movie where Spider-Man puts everything he's learned gets challenged, and the one where everything he's learned gets put into full use.

So in short... Gwen Stacy should die before the last movie. I'm being very specific in saying that it might not even be the second movie. Because we really don't know for sure what they might have cooking for us.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

So in short... Gwen Stacy should die before the last movie. I'm being very specific in saying that it might not even be the second movie. Because we really don't know for sure what they might have cooking for us.

This.

And in a perfect world id have a whole franchise of films having peter evolve with his women. Id have the Gwen story having him learn a harsh lesson about responsibility, hard truths, and protecting those you love. (this would probably be a story that causes him to almost hate the fact he's Spider-Man....).... then id pick him back up with black cat who is almost like his drug, she teaches him to enjoy being spidey again, but too much where he begins to forget about peter Parker and Peters responsibilities. Then comes MJ who completes his growth and loves him for both aspects of his life, and can handle herself with the burden of his identity and protects him as much as he does her.

 

[Radioactive]

This is getting silly.

 

[DigificWriter]

Eddie: There really aren't any absolutes in this situation, and words like 'should' or phrases like 'it would be better if' carry or imply absoluteness.

BTW, Avi Arad's comments were made after that FB message was posted.

PSYLENTGuardian: I disagree with the idea that Peter learning that breaking his promise to Captain Stacy will have a cost can't be accomplished if Gwen doesn't die until the third movie, but you do make a good case nonetheless.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Some are saying film 2 is too soon for both GG and Gwen’s death…while I believe her death should happen in ASM2, I can see people’s point about needing more time to set up Norman.

That being said, how would people feel if another villain killed her? Who, if not GG, would you want it to be?

Obviously, we all know it SHOULD be GG, and anything else would be a sham, but for the sake of argument, if Webb and Co decided to go this route, is there a villain that you feel would make sense to use in GG’s stead? Who and why?

 

[Steve Sanders]

There will be chance to do the Death of Gwen Stacy story arc. Should it be done exactly like the comics, done different from the comic or not at all?

If they do it when should it happen movie 2 or movie 3?

I put in Never she she shouldnt die.that was the worst mistake they ever made.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Disagree. One More Day was the worst mistake they ever made.

 

[Drummerdude7]

Disagree. One More Day was the worst mistake they ever made.

 

[Immortalfire]

I wouldn't get your hopes up. That Venom movie is going to remain in pre-production Hell for a long time.

I think a Venom movie would end up being received somewhere between the likes of Elektra and Catwoman.

 

[Eddie Brock]

Eddie: There really aren't any absolutes in this situation, and words like 'should' or phrases like 'it would be better if' carry or imply absoluteness.

BTW, Avi Arad's comments were made after that FB message was posted.

I just don't agree that "should" is an absolute. A lot of things should happen. Doesn't mean the world will end without them.

I think a Venom movie would end up being received somewhere between the likes of Elektra and Catwoman.

Very likely true. That's why I'm hoping it dies in pre-production Hell.

 

[Drummerdude7]

It's not going to get made. Arad has been pushing it since SM3 ended, and it's gotten nowhere.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Some are saying film 2 is too soon for both GG and Gwen’s death…while I believe her death should happen in ASM2, I can see people’s point about needing more time to set up Norman.

That being said, how would people feel if another villain killed her? Who, if not GG, would you want it to be?

Obviously, we all know it SHOULD be GG, and anything else would be a sham, but for the sake of argument, if Webb and Co decided to go this route, is there a villain that you feel would make sense to use in GG’s stead? Who and why?

No one else should kill her. And Norman doesn't have to die in the same film

 

[k1dn1nj4]

I think that although we may potentially get more than a trilogy with this (which I'm hoping for), it would be impractical to not at least initially plan for a trilogy. Or plan a story arc that is resolved after three movies BUT leaves room for continuation. This is because of unsure audience interest, budgets and time constraints (contracts running out, actors getting older and no longer fitting their roles). Traditionally, works of fiction fit into three parts or acts anyway. There's the rising action, climax, then denouement. Or introduction, conflict, and resolution. No it doesn't have to be three films but I think it's a smart route for Sony to finish off telling at least the first story arc in a trilogy so as to get closure for the audience because more movies would be an unsure thing and gamble. And Peter's first love (and loss) should be resolved relatively early on so we can see his character grow from that.

 

[Spider-Who?]

No one else should kill her. And Norman doesn't have to die in the same film

I feel this way too, but that isn't what I'm asking.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I feel this way too, but that isn't what I'm asking.

And I answered it. No one else fits the bill

 

[PSYLENTGuardian]

I disagree with the idea that Peter learning that breaking his promise to Captain Stacy will have a cost can't be accomplished if Gwen doesn't die until the third movie, but you do make a good case nonetheless.

Well I mean, I honestly don't care if they do it for the third movie. Just so long as they have one more movie to redeem Spider-Man.