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

[mr. peasant]

How'd this Thread go from "When and how should Gwen Stacy die?" to whether or not the gun went off purposely and whether or not the goblin should die ?lol straying a bit from the topic eh?lol

Well, not if Gwen Stacy is actually the Green Goblin.

 

[Web face]

Well, not if Gwen Stacy is actually the Green Goblin.

And she kills herself as the Goblin! I like where you are going with this.

 

[Rogue Kira]

And she kills herself as the Goblin! I like where you are going with this.

It genius I tell ya! Genuis? lol

 

[mr. peasant]

Well, not if Gwen Stacy is actually the Green Goblin.

And she kills herself as the Goblin! I like where you are going with this.

It genius I tell ya! Genuis? lol

The only way I can see it play out like that is if M Night Shyamalan takes a crack at TASM2.

"What a twist!"

 

[LegendAssemble]

And I never stated it as such. I clearly said that there's more to say one over the other.It's no ones right or place to state such a thing. I can't know his intentions. And neither can you. Perhaps you should practice a little belief in humanity and offer the benefit of the doubt.

This isn't inception or shutter island it's not one of those "up to interpretation" you practice benefit of the doubt with real people, not fictional characters. The robber has no humanity, he is a fictional character that was created for a movie, also you never answered my question as to why you don't care Uncle Ben got shot?

How'd this Thread go from "When and how should Gwen Stacy die?" to whether or not the gun went off purposely and whether or not the goblin should die ?lol straying a bit from the topic eh?lol

This thread basically turned into a justice league and dc cinematic universe argument about 10-15 pages ago, haha. We're not good at staying on topic.

Also to everyone who's saying MJ would be wrong to include because it would ruin Gwens death, and make her look replaceable, well she is? Have you ever heard there's other fish in the see? Women (and Men) are replaceable as they come and go and no one is obligated to be with their high school sweetheart forever. The circumstances probably aren't going to be like Uncle Ben's (making a huge error) where Peter is stuck alone forever.

 

[OP84CC82]

he unknowingly slipps the info to his Dad

Harry would tell his father about his friend's love life why?

 

[OP84CC82]

He's just a troll, he likes to start arguments over everything, the only thing thats really consistant is that he loved Gwen.

Damn, you really have to just shut up. You seem to have it out for Dagenspear just because he doesn't want Gwen Stacy to die and that he's providing logical reasons that they shouldn't do as such. I think the problem isn't that he may like Gwen Stacy as a character, it's that you either don't like Gwen Stacy, love Mary Jane, or is some obsessed fanboy who can't accept change.

 

[Visualiza]

This isn't inception or shutter island it's not one of those "up to interpretation" you practice benefit of the doubt with real people, not fictional characters. The robber has no humanity, he is a fictional character that was created for a movie, also you never answered my question as to why you don't care Uncle Ben got shot?

I disagree. That's a bit cavalier to suggest that he has no humanity. If that were the case, he probably wouldn't have thought twice about both intimidating and shooting the clerk, let alone throwing Peter the chocolate milk. Moral ambiguity is a common theme in literature and film, and it's commonplace these days anyway. We hardly ever see villains doing things 'in the name of evil' anymore, it's just not very belevable. In many cases, even when characters are outright scoundrels, they're usually portrayed as insane or psychotic to varying degrees. Heck, even in comics ambiguity is the common trend. Look at how the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants dropped the 'Evil' from their name as time went on.

As for the scene in question, it may or may not have been an accident; we can't come to anything conclusive from what was shown. Now, a 1911 won't just go off, but the robber could have squeezed the trigger as a reaction to the calamity. Who knows? I think the entire scene just didn't give us enough. You can't say with any certainty that the guy was a violent thug, as his reluctance to pull the gun on the cashier suggests otherwise. The robbery itself told me that the guy was just a trouble maker, not even trying to so much as intimidate the store clerk. Then again, he had a concealed weapon on him and was fleeing the scene in the first place, so who's to say?

Also to everyone who's saying MJ would be wrong to include because it would ruin Gwens death, and make her look replaceable, well she is? Have you ever heard there's other fish in the see? Women (and Men) are replaceable as they come and go and no one is obligated to be with their high school sweetheart forever. The circumstances probably aren't going to be like Uncle Ben's (making a huge error) where Peter is stuck alone forever.

Agreed, but I think it would be more difficult to pull off on film, especially if Stone becomes a fan favorite. It could be done, but it would take some clever writing.

 

[LegendAssemble]

Damn, you really have to just shut up. You seem to have it out for Dagenspear just because he doesn't want Gwen Stacy to die and that he's providing logical reasons that they shouldn't do as such. I think the problem isn't that he may like Gwen Stacy as a character, it's that you either don't like Gwen Stacy, love Mary Jane, or is some obsessed fanboy who can't accept change.

Or maybe it's a good story and it's stupid to change it. He's not giving any logical points and he's just trying to start arguments. I like Gwen as a character, and I don't really care for Mary Jane that much actually. The fact is though that he's making bad points why they should change arguably Spider-Mans best story. Just because you like a character doesn't mean they should live.

Anyway I think you are the one that needs to shut up, as you have no reason to attack me to prove your point.

Harry would tell his father about his friend's love life why?

I don't know haha? It was off the top of my head. Just a random idea, not really thought out.

 

[LegendAssemble]

I disagree. That's a bit cavalier to suggest that he has no humanity. If that were the case, he probably wouldn't have thought twice about both intimidating and shooting the clerk, let alone throwing Peter the chocolate milk. Moral ambiguity is a common theme in literature and film, and it's commonplace these days anyway. We hardly ever see villains doing things 'in the name of evil' anymore, it's just not very belevable. In many cases, even when characters are outright scoundrels, they're usually portrayed as insane or psychotic to varying degrees. Heck, even in comics ambiguity is the common trend. Look at how the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants dropped the 'Evil' from their name as time went on.

As for the scene in question, it may or may not have been an accident; we can't come to anything conclusive from what was shown. Now, a 1911 won't just go off, but the robber could have squeezed the trigger as a reaction to the calamity. Who knows? I think the entire scene just didn't give us enough. You can't say with any certainty that the guy was a violent thug, as his reluctance to pull the gun on the cashier suggests otherwise. The robbery itself told me that the guy was just a trouble maker, not even trying to so much as intimidate the store clerk. Then again, he had a concealed weapon on him and was fleeing the scene in the first place, so who's to say?

I mean I'm saying that you can't put a fictional character on trial. I know characters have to have some degree of humanity, motivation, and logic in their decision making. I was just trying to say he's stretching it a bit. The guy had a concealed weapon and may have shot Uncle Ben anyway for seeing he had it. You're right its ambiguous but theres an equal amount of evidence for both sides.

Agreed, but I think it would be more difficult to pull off on film, especially if Stone becomes a fan favorite. It could be done, but it would take some clever writing.

It'd be difficult but they'd need to make Gwen's death somewhat her fault and have Peters guilt drive him to blame himself. That way it doesn't feel like regression when he does end up with Mary Jane.

 

[spida-man]

personally the whole trilogy cliche is B.S to me.

if a book series like HP or Twilight and I'm sure Hunger Games can get more films than there are books because they like splitting the last book into two films...

WHY THE EFF can't a comic book series that's FIFTY YEARS OLD get a film series with MORE than just three films?!

I don't want to hear about the actors getting old. Most of the cast look young for their age and we could have Spidey stories that go PAST his high school days up to and maybe even past college. The material is there. Hollywood needs to stop being so damn stupid.

Gwen should die at the end of the third film. and maybe they say the aspect of the Untold Story with the parents is a trilogy. after all Star Wars is split into 2 trilogies and Pirates of the Caribbean is confirmed to have a new trilogy starting with On Stranger Tides.

TASM series could have the trilogy end with Gwen's death and then the new trilogy shows the aftermath

 

[Oscorp]

I disagree. That's a bit cavalier to suggest that he has no humanity. If that were the case, he probably wouldn't have thought twice about both intimidating and shooting the clerk, let alone throwing Peter the chocolate milk. Moral ambiguity is a common theme in literature and film, and it's commonplace these days anyway. We hardly ever see villains doing things 'in the name of evil' anymore, it's just not very belevable. In many cases, even when characters are outright scoundrels, they're usually portrayed as insane or psychotic to varying degrees. Heck, even in comics ambiguity is the common trend. Look at how the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants dropped the 'Evil' from their name as time went on.

As for the scene in question, it may or may not have been an accident; we can't come to anything conclusive from what was shown. Now, a 1911 won't just go off, but the robber could have squeezed the trigger as a reaction to the calamity. Who knows? I think the entire scene just didn't give us enough. You can't say with any certainty that the guy was a violent thug, as his reluctance to pull the gun on the cashier suggests otherwise. The robbery itself told me that the guy was just a trouble maker, not even trying to so much as intimidate the store clerk. Then again, he had a concealed weapon on him and was fleeing the scene in the first place, so who's to say?






Agreed, but I think it would be more difficult to pull off on film, especially if Stone becomes a fan favorite. It could be done, but it would take some clever writing.

Very well said, and very interesting!

 

[Dark Sentinel]

The only way I can see it play out like that is if M Night Shyamalan takes a crack at TASM2.

"What a twist!"

In a word?

Spoiler

 

[LegendAssemble]

personally the whole trilogy cliche is B.S to me.

if a book series like HP or Twilight and I'm sure Hunger Games can get more films than there are books because they like splitting the last book into two films...

WHY THE EFF can't a comic book series that's FIFTY YEARS OLD get a film series with MORE than just three films?!

I don't want to hear about the actors getting old. Most of the cast look young for their age and we could have Spidey stories that go PAST his high school days up to and maybe even past college. The material is there. Hollywood needs to stop being so damn stupid.

Gwen should die at the end of the third film. and maybe they say the aspect of the Untold Story with the parents is a trilogy. after all Star Wars is split into 2 trilogies and Pirates of the Caribbean is confirmed to have a new trilogy starting with On Stranger Tides.

TASM series could have the trilogy end with Gwen's death and then the new trilogy shows the aftermath

Harry Potter is an exception because it chronicles the growth of a boy through his pre-teen years to coming of age. A time period where people change on an almost constant basis. Change is what makes us interested in watching the character in a movie. Sure we'd all love a simple short Spidey adventure, but it wouldn't be memorable it'd just kind of fade away. The problem is that eventually the character gets sucked into a stunted state of near growth, constantly learning the same lesson and not really changing as fast as a real person would because they need to make more movies.

It's better to set a number on these things so you can make the best stories possible. Also like you said theres 50 years of stories rather than solid books, like Harry Potter and Twilight which also had set numbers.

It is possible, but it would need to be something they planned from the start in order not to end up like Raimi Spider-Man films, the 90s Batman films, or the Superman franchise.

 

[Web face]

I'm taking a break from this thread. I CANT TAKE THE FIGHTING! Haha jk

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

personally the whole trilogy cliche is B.S to me.

if a book series like HP or Twilight and I'm sure Hunger Games can get more films than there are books because they like splitting the last book into two films...

WHY THE EFF can't a comic book series that's FIFTY YEARS OLD get a film series with MORE than just three films?!

I don't want to hear about the actors getting old. Most of the cast look young for their age and we could have Spidey stories that go PAST his high school days up to and maybe even past college. The material is there. Hollywood needs to stop being so damn stupid.

Gwen should die at the end of the third film. and maybe they say the aspect of the Untold Story with the parents is a trilogy. after all Star Wars is split into 2 trilogies and Pirates of the Caribbean is confirmed to have a new trilogy starting with On Stranger Tides.

TASM series could have the trilogy end with Gwen's death and then the new trilogy shows the aftermath

I love you. I'm so sick of trilogies. Trilogy this and trilogy that. "its so great cuz its a beginning, a middle, and an end." F*** that. Sometimes theres more to the MIDDLE than just one film! Spider-Man's story deserves more than 3 films, and so does Batman but i won't even go into that right now.

 

[OP84CC82]

Or maybe it's a good story and it's stupid to change it. He's not giving any logical points and he's just trying to start arguments. I like Gwen as a character, and I don't really care for Mary Jane that much actually. The fact is though that he's making bad points why they should change arguably Spider-Mans best story. Just because you like a character doesn't mean they should live.

If you think it's a good story and you wouldn't want it changed, good for you. It's your opinion and no one can change it. Dagenspear thinks it shouldn't be done in the movies and it's his opinion (and one that I proudly agree with). All the points he is are logical because they are to him. They aren't bad points because they are based upon his perception of the story. So technically, you attacking him makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Dagenspear]

i am mostly disagree about the part where you say he isnt using the gun in a threatening manner. He was probably planning to steal from that shop, and the gun's safety wasn't on. It would be a little convenient to say that he accidentally turned off the safety and accidentally pulled the trigger. It would also be pretty hard to say it was all an accident if he was walking around without the safety on on his gun.

Maybe the safety was broken, maybe the guy's an idiot and doesn't even know how to operate a gun, MAYBE he has the gun for protection, night can be a pretty dangerous time. Yes, he's a criminal, but that doesn't mean he did what he did on purpose, and NO ONE has any right say so. Innocent until proven guilty.

Oh yes I should totally give the benefit of the doubt to a guy that walks around stealing from cash registers with a loaded gun in his pocket. How silly of me to not think this guy accidentally shot the gun. I mean it's not he is carrying it to use. He is most likely just going down the street to show his buddies his cool new gun that is fully loaded.

Being a criminal doesn't make someone evil, nor does that mean that he loses the right to the benefit of doubt. He's a human being, and it's not clear what his true intentions or motives are. I can't know. YOU can't know. And therefore, WE have no right to judge based on simple perception and conjecture.

 

[Dagenspear]

It makes Peter grow so yes it is factual.

It making Peter grow wasn't the argument though, YOU said that it's "more powerful", and personally I disagree with both, I'd find it far more powerful if Peter beats the **** out of the Green Goblin with an inch of his life, he just pummels him senseless, and he's about to kill him, he wants to kill him, he wants to more than anything, BUT then he thinks about Gwen and Ben, and he'd know that this isn't what they'd want for him, this isn't what they'd want him to be, and just can't do it, then Goblin tries to sneak the glider on him, or something similar, and BAM classic death, and Peter just in horror, knowing that he could've done that, that he almost did, and he'd from it. However, what I'd find more powerful is for the Lizard to save Gwen after Goblin throws her off the bridge, or something similar, and then helps Peter fight the Goblin, dying in the process, but redeeming himself, and Peter and Gwen can get engaged and married, and take the story of Spider-Man into a new direction for a new generation, and have a happy ending. I'd find that SO MUCH MORE powerful than anything death and pain can offer.

As for Uncle Ben Sherlock, he's attacking a man with a weapon and the guy uses his weapon. It's murder none the less. Plus this isn't law and order this is a movie and like good movies it should explore a characters emotions.

No, it's not Law and Order, but that shouldn't matter. It's what's right.

EDIT: Also since you don't think Gwen should die because she's a good person and they shouldn't go by the comics because if people wanted those stories they should just read them, by your logic you should be really upset they killed Uncle Ben too!

I am. Of course I am. An innocent man died. Who would be okay with that? What kind of a person would be okay with that? He died, and I didn't want it to happen, but it's the origin, and origins can't really be changed that much, and it's already happened, it's in the past, whining about something that's already happened isn't going to make it NOT happen. Better to argue why someone else SHOULDN'T die, someone who doesn't even HAVE TO, beyond pleasing fanboys. Which is disgusting by the way. I can't even fathom why someone would want Gwen to die.

 

[Dagenspear]

I disagree. That's a bit cavalier to suggest that he has no humanity. If that were the case, he probably wouldn't have thought twice about both intimidating and shooting the clerk, let alone throwing Peter the chocolate milk. Moral ambiguity is a common theme in literature and film, and it's commonplace these days anyway. We hardly ever see villains doing things 'in the name of evil' anymore, it's just not very belevable. In many cases, even when characters are outright scoundrels, they're usually portrayed as insane or psychotic to varying degrees. Heck, even in comics ambiguity is the common trend. Look at how the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants dropped the 'Evil' from their name as time went on.

As for the scene in question, it may or may not have been an accident; we can't come to anything conclusive from what was shown. Now, a 1911 won't just go off, but the robber could have squeezed the trigger as a reaction to the calamity. Who knows? I think the entire scene just didn't give us enough. You can't say with any certainty that the guy was a violent thug, as his reluctance to pull the gun on the cashier suggests otherwise. The robbery itself told me that the guy was just a trouble maker, not even trying to so much as intimidate the store clerk. Then again, he had a concealed weapon on him and was fleeing the scene in the first place, so who's to say?

Thank you so much for this. He seems to have a vendetta against me and won't listen to anything I say, without resorting to the word "troll". It's pretty indecent.

 

[Dagenspear]

If you think it's a good story and you wouldn't want it changed, good for you. It's your opinion and no one can change it. Dagenspear thinks it shouldn't be done in the movies and it's his opinion (and one that I proudly agree with). All the points he is are logical because they are to him. They aren't bad points because they are based upon his perception of the story. So technically, you attacking him makes no sense whatsoever.

And thank you too. Personally I love the story, where it is, I don't think it was neccesary, and I don't respect the writers reasons for doing it, nor do I really respect him as a person, but I respect that he wrote the story he wanted to write, and did what he wanted to do in it, and that's all anyone can really ask of any writer. But it doesn't need to happen again, especially now, with so many changed circumstances.

 

[Web face]

Maybe the safety was broken, maybe the guy's an idiot and doesn't even know how to operate a gun, MAYBE he has the gun for protection, night can be a pretty dangerous time. Yes, he's a criminal, but that doesn't mean he did what he did on purpose, and NO ONE has any right say so. Innocent until proven guilty.

Can you really say that it was self defense when the man was wrestling a man that could have been twice his age? I understand that innocent until proven guilty in the real world, but I just think that the director wanted to show that the thief shot Uncle Ben on purpose.

Being a criminal doesn't make someone evil, nor does that mean that he loses the right to the benefit of doubt. He's a human being, and it's not clear what his true intentions or motives are. I can't know. YOU can't know. And therefore, WE have no right to judge based on simple perception and conjecture.

I am not saying he is evil and I am not saying that he doesn't have some humanity in him. I am just saying that I am pretty sure that he shot the gun on purpose at that moment. I said it before, he may regret it, but I don't think the gun going off was a complete accident. Also, if you say that I don't have the right to say to think that he shot on purpose, what gives you the right to say he didn't mean it? What gives you the right to say that I am wrong in my thinking? It doesn't matter, we interpret it differently, now lets move on. You and LegendAssemble should probably move on from this topic too, since you guys can't seem to keep things civil with all the name calling and everything.

 

[jonathancrane]

To answer the question: the first ten minutes of the film.

 

[jonathancrane]

To answer the question: the first ten minutes of the film. if the bloated love scenes are kept to a mibimum, I will be grateful.

 

[mikey1974]

personally,i'd introduce MJ and Harry (and Norman)in the 2nd film,even have her and Peter go out on a date that,well...let's just say they find it better to be friends.because even though he made the promise,he still loves Gwen. and by the end of ASM 2 have Peter and Gwen reunited,and Norman on his way to being the Goblin.

then MJ is with Harry in ASM 3, and Peter is with Gwen. Norman becomes the Goblin fully and is the main villain. Gwen dies, Norman dies,and everyone is broken.

then you can end the "trilogy" with threads planted for the future about what can happen with Norman,MJ, and Peter in response to what has happened, their relationships,and what could come about in the future. that way any future movies or "trilogy" could follow the comics,and what is to come after the 1st 3 films, or go it's own way.