Do you think Gwen Stacy will die in the Amazing Spider-Man movie franchise?

[Regulus B.]

The impact on the industry certainly helps.

But I personally thought it was well-written.

It had three of the best moments in the character's history.
1- Gwen's death, with the added question of whether Peter accidentally killed her through his method of trying to save her.
2- The Death of the Green Goblin.
3- That last page with MJ.

I think it's primarily the impact on the industry. Other than that, I find it somewhat standard (if that's the right word) story writing. And of the things you listed that add to it, one has already been done and one will be very hard to replicate as it requires a certain amount of build.

At the end of the day, I don't enjoy the story, hope it isn't done, and think that if it is, it will have most of its thunder taken away by context and deja vu.

[satchmo the dragon]

Garfield is too old, they missed a real chance to make a cool teenage Spider Man.

[It's Superman]

Garfield is too old, they missed a real chance to make a cool teenage Spider Man.

I agrre with you

[Mister Mets]

I think it's primarily the impact on the industry. Other than that, I find it somewhat standard (if that's the right word) story writing. And of the things you listed that add to it, one has already been done and one will be very hard to replicate as it requires a certain amount of build.

At the end of the day, I don't enjoy the story, hope it isn't done, and think that if it is, it will have most of its thunder taken away by context and deja vu.

To clarify, what made the death of the Green Goblin such a good moment (probably one of the top ten Spider-Man moments) was the way he died, trying to kill Spider-Man, who had just shown some mercy.

[Spidey_Legend]

I don't like how AMS #121-122 was written. The only good thing was Norman's death.

[Max_Power]

Seems like the Amazing Spider-Man fans are an amazingly morbid lot.

I didn't see too much bloodlust among the people who saw Disney's "The Little Mermaid", even if the mermaid's demise (well, not exactly demise, but a very bad end) was a lot more important to that story than that of Gwen Stacy can even HOPE to be to Amazing Spider-Man. In fact, a lot of people I talked to were actually thankful that the death (or pass to the nether-realm, transformation into sea foam, whatever, it's been a while since I read the story) was removed from Disney's version.

But anyway, I can't see Gwen Stacy dying in this movies, unless the producers are really crazy in love with the original comic (emphasis on "crazy"). After all, I truly doubt Batman's childhood friend (Rachel? Bad memory, I know) died because it was planned since the beginning. I think it had a lot more to do with Katie Holmes walking off those movies. Besides, three movies is too little time to cover even the basics of Spider-Man without feeling that "They rushed the whole thing" sensation. But even if that isn't convincing enough, I think the only reason they went with Gwen Stacy is because they didn't want people thinking that they only continued the Raimi movies. Changing the love interest is a somewhat good differentiator, so I don't think we will ever see Mary Jane in these movies. And without Mary Jane, Gwen's death would seem too depressing to the average movie-goer. But even with her, it could seem a little too depressing.

Finally, my two cents on a classic comic: "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" wasn't very goodly written. It has continuity mistakes all over it, which form pretty neat plot-holes: 1) If you remember, the reason Peter didn't swing to catch Gwen when she was falling, was because he was feeling ill, so he used his webbing instead. Hell, he couldn't even knock out the Goblin with his best punch. The next issue, however, he was as good as new, and his illness is totally forgotten! 2) Harry was so badly drugged, that he hardly could stand on his feet. However, he somehow managed to get on his feet, find his father hideout (really? I thought he didn't know his father was the Goblin) and all on time to see Spider-Man going out of it! (the good lad. Picked the right hideout and went there so fast that he missed the fight for minutes). The best part? He went there without any reason! We didn't ever know why the hell he was there, how he managed to be on time and how he beat the effects of the drugs so easily to be there in the first place! (Or maybe we did know. Had to be a retcon, I don't recall any explanation in the thirty issues after that).

[Meehaul]

Might be fun to have the films mirror one of the most important arcs in the spider-verse.

[Kevinroc]

Seems like the Amazing Spider-Man fans are an amazingly morbid lot.

I didn't see too much bloodlust among the people who saw Disney's "The Little Mermaid", even if the mermaid's demise (well, not exactly demise, but a very bad end) was a lot more important to that story than that of Gwen Stacy can even HOPE to be to Amazing Spider-Man. In fact, a lot of people I talked to were actually thankful that the death (or pass to the nether-realm, transformation into sea foam, whatever, it's been a while since I read the story) was removed from Disney's version.

Comparing a Disney animated movie with a "G" rating to a PG-13 rated super-hero movie seems... odd...

But the producers have talked about how these films areGwen Stacy's story. And it's hard to talk about this being Gwen's story without mentioning that she dies.

But anyway, I can't see Gwen Stacy dying in this movies, unless the producers are really crazy in love with the original comic (emphasis on "crazy"). After all, I truly doubt Batman's childhood friend (Rachel? Bad memory, I know) died because it was planned since the beginning. I think it had a lot more to do with Katie Holmes walking off those movies. Besides, three movies is too little time to cover even the basics of Spider-Man without feeling that "They rushed the whole thing" sensation. But even if that isn't convincing enough, I think the only reason they went with Gwen Stacy is because they didn't want people thinking that they only continued the Raimi movies. Changing the love interest is a somewhat good differentiator, so I don't think we will ever see Mary Jane in these movies. And without Mary Jane, Gwen's death would seem too depressing to the average movie-goer. But even with her, it could seem a little too depressing.

They want these movies to be far darker than the Raimi movies. And using the love interest who is most famous for dying accomplishes that. This isn't going to be the light-hearted romp that the Raimi movies went for. (And they took out Jonah, something I think is truly wrong! But I digress...)

As far as MJ. She may or may not appear in this franchise.

[Xenon]

Seems like the Amazing Spider-Man fans are an amazingly morbid lot.

I didn't see too much bloodlust among the people who saw Disney's "The Little Mermaid", even if the mermaid's demise (well, not exactly demise, but a very bad end) was a lot more important to that story than that of Gwen Stacy can even HOPE to be to Amazing Spider-Man. In fact, a lot of people I talked to were actually thankful that the death (or pass to the nether-realm, transformation into sea foam, whatever, it's been a while since I read the story) was removed from Disney's version.

The gap between a Disney kids movie in 1988 and a comic book adaptation movie post-The Dark Knight is miles and miles. Plus, I'm not sure I've even met someone who's actually read the original Hans Christensen novel.

But anyway, I can't see Gwen Stacy dying in this movies, unless the producers are really crazy in love with the original comic (emphasis on "crazy"). After all, I truly doubt Batman's childhood friend (Rachel? Bad memory, I know) died because it was planned since the beginning. I think it had a lot more to do with Katie Holmes walking off those movies. Besides, three movies is too little time to cover even the basics of Spider-Man without feeling that "They rushed the whole thing" sensation. But even if that isn't convincing enough, I think the only reason they went with Gwen Stacy is because they didn't want people thinking that they only continued the Raimi movies. Changing the love interest is a somewhat good differentiator, so I don't think we will ever see Mary Jane in these movies. And without Mary Jane, Gwen's death would seem too depressing to the average movie-goer. But even with her, it could seem a little too depressing.

1) You might have a point about Rachel if she died in between movies or something. But Maggie Gyllenhall is in most of that movie.
2) See, I think MJ will definitely show up in the second movie. But I htink you're right that without Mary Jane it would be too dark to just kill Gwen. But since I think she WILL show up...

Finally, my two cents on a classic comic: "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" wasn't very goodly written. It has continuity mistakes all over it, which form pretty neat plot-holes: 1) If you remember, the reason Peter didn't swing to catch Gwen when she was falling, was because he was feeling ill, so he used his webbing instead. Hell, he couldn't even knock out the Goblin with his best punch. The next issue, however, he was as good as new, and his illness is totally forgotten! 2) Harry was so badly drugged, that he hardly could stand on his feet. However, he somehow managed to get on his feet, find his father hideout (really? I thought he didn't know his father was the Goblin) and all on time to see Spider-Man going out of it! (the good lad. Picked the right hideout and went there so fast that he missed the fight for minutes). The best part? He went there without any reason! We didn't ever know why the hell he was there, how he managed to be on time and how he beat the effects of the drugs so easily to be there in the first place! (Or maybe we did know. Had to be a retcon, I don't recall any explanation in the thirty issues after that).

1) Adrenaline, Rage, Grief, Time. Lots of reasons why Spider-Man could be ok. His powers have been said to improve his recovery time dramatically. And just because they don't mention it again doesn't mean that the illness necessarily went away. It just wasn't mentioned again.
2) Harry was on a Drug Trip and had been for some time. AFAIK Drug withdrawal symptoms don't necessarily have an exact duration, and aren't necessarily constant either. There's no reason why in one of his better moments he couldn't have gotten out of bed and tried to find his Father. Or maybe what we saw was the tail end of it.

[Max_Power]

Comparing a Disney animated movie with a "G" rating to a PG-13 rated super-hero movie seems... odd...

The classification doesn't have anything to do with it. It's a far more important plot point in that story. Besides, "The Little Mermaid" has been animated before with her sad ending intact.

But the producers have talked about how these films areGwen Stacy's story. And it's hard to talk about this being Gwen's story without mentioning that she dies.

That's just typical Hollywood hubris. I doubt they care at all how faithful they are to the original comics. As long as they can draw audiences to the theaters, they can (and will) change the story to maximize the audience. And sad romance stories don't draw the males, the biggest demographic for this type of movies. The comic book readers are too few to target a movie this expensive to them (See also: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World).

They want these movies to be far darker than the Raimi movies. And using the love interest who is most famous for dying accomplishes that. This isn't going to be the light-hearted romp that the Raimi movies went for. (And they took out Jonah, something I think is truly wrong! But I digress...)

As far as MJ. She may or may not appear in this franchise.

I think they only want these movies to be more "realistic" than Raimi's movies, not more filled with tragedy. And as far as I can tell, they only took out Jonah to differentiate them further from Raimi's films. I already said that I believe Gwen is the love interest to differentiate the movies. I'll take it further and say that they only took her because her name is somewhat recognizable, not because they care about her as a character.

As for Mary Jane, I can see her being in these movies only as nod to the fans. Maybe as a love interest if things need a good shaking for the sequels (Read: If Emma Stone walks away), but not if everything goes well.

[quillero]

Emma Stone has become too big a star. If it happens (probably will) it'll be at the end (more likely middle) of movie 3

[Kevinroc]

The classification doesn't have anything to do with it. It's a far more important plot point in that story. Besides, "The Little Mermaid" has been animated before with her sad ending intact.

But Disney is know for lightening up their movies in comparison to the original stories. Hence the "Disneyfication" label.

That's just typical Hollywood hubris. I doubt they care at all how faithful they are to the original comics. As long as they can draw audiences to the theaters, they can (and will) change the story to maximize the audience. And sad romance stories don't draw the males, the biggest demographic for this type of movies. The comic book readers are too few to target a movie this expensive to them (See also: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World).

The Nolan Dark Knight movie made a ton of money. Tragic super hero romances can indeed make money.

I think they only want these movies to be more "realistic" than Raimi's movies, not more filled with tragedy. And as far as I can tell, they only took out Jonah to differentiate them further from Raimi's films. I already said that I believe Gwen is the love interest to differentiate the movies. I'll take it further and say that they only took her because her name is somewhat recognizable, not because they care about her as a character.

The big reason people remember Gwen is because she died. People don't tend to remember Peter's relationship with Betty Brant or Liz Allan, do they?

As for Mary Jane, I can see her being in these movies only as nod to the fans. Maybe as a love interest if things need a good shaking for the sequels (Read: If Emma Stone walks away), but not if everything goes well.

MJ may or may not appear in these movies.

[Max_Power]

But Disney is know for lightening up their movies in comparison to the original stories. Hence the "Disneyfication" label.

True that. But they sometimes put grim stuff where there wasn't any in the original story (See William Clayton's demise in Tarzan. He wasn't even killed in the original story).

The Nolan Dark Knight movie made a ton of money. Tragic super hero romances can indeed make money.

Heh. You would be surprised to see the number of people that didn't even realize that Maggie Gylleenhall was supposed to be playing the same part as Katie Holmes. To many, she was a brand new character, and as such, they didn't care when she was killed. So no, no romance in that front (at least for the public).

The big reason people remember Gwen is because she died. People don't tend to remember Peter's relationship with Betty Brant or Liz Allan, do they?

Maybe for current comic book readers she is only remembered for that. For old farts like myself, she is far more important than "Uncle Ben Light, Part Deux". For some kids though, she is the shy but smart love interest of Peter Parker in the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon (which thankfully, didn't have the time to kill her). I don't know who outnumbers who, but Hollywood usually goes for the lowest common denominator

[Max_Power]

The gap between a Disney kids movie in 1988 and a comic book adaptation movie post-The Dark Knight is miles and miles. Plus, I'm not sure I've even met someone who's actually read the original Hans Christensen novel.

People know about the end. Jekyll and Hyde is another story nobody ever reads (ahem, except for people like myself) and even then, most people know the basic gist of the story.

But anyway, the gap isn't as large as you think. And Batman post Dark Knight Returns is a better fit for tragedy than Spider-Man. What works with one can backfire for the other.

1) You might have a point about Rachel if she died in between movies or something. But Maggie Gyllenhall is in most of that movie.

Well, as I said in another post, some people didn't even realize that Maggie Gylleenhall was supposed to be the same character as Katie Holmes. But her death scene wasn't too powerful anyway. Maybe in part for the change in the cast, but I don't know anybody that was actually moved by that scene.

1) Adrenaline, Rage, Grief, Time. Lots of reasons why Spider-Man could be ok. His powers have been said to improve his recovery time dramatically. And just because they don't mention it again doesn't mean that the illness necessarily went away. It just wasn't mentioned again.
2) Harry was on a Drug Trip and had been for some time. AFAIK Drug withdrawal symptoms don't necessarily have an exact duration, and aren't necessarily constant either. There's no reason why in one of his better moments he couldn't have gotten out of bed and tried to find his Father. Or maybe what we saw was the tail end of it.

If something needs to be explained by the fandom, just how good a story can be? And your points would be more valid if Gerry Conway didn't drop plot points like crazy in another stories (whatever happened to Peter's ulcer? In ulcer's heaven, I believe).

[CMBMOOL]

As if the comics time-line wasn't twisted enough....I mean if they let Gwen die within the movie reboot...something tells me that it will reflect in the comics as well almost twisting the infamous "Gwen Stacy Death" storyline a bit futher...I mean did Marvel not learn from their horrible "Sins Past" storyline ?