"The Amazing Spiderman" Sequel

[Stoner]

I mean I could see him as Hammerhead maybe.  It'd be similar to his character in that one movie where the dude was killing people with carrots.  But not Rhino.  Rhino is supposed to be a fucking BEAST.  I think they dropped the ball on this one a little bit.

[Jackson Christopher]

Well although i have never been a big Spiderman fan after the shit fest we endured during the original trilogy, from the looks of this current movie they are trying to stick more to the comic book which is pretty amazing Electros costume doesn't look goofy or cartoony. I am llegitimately looking forward to this new Spiderman oh sorry i'm new here btw

[Stoner]

Norman Osbourne

Holy shit.  Bad ass actor here.

[Stoner]

[spoiler=HUGE FUCKING SPOILER!  SERIOUSLY, ITS A BIG ONE!  ASTRONOMICAL IN ITS IMPORTANCE!]
"Essentially the argument is that Spider-Man kills her by accident," states Stone in an interview with SFX (via Digital Spy). "So the person she loves is the person who kills her, which is the most horrifying thing. Apparently people unsubscribed to the comic book when that happened because they were just so flipped-out over it. But, of course, I want to stay true to that."

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2013/05/emma-stone-confirms-big-gwen-stacy.html


[/spoiler]

I don't know how reputable the source is, but if true then DIZ.  AMN!

[LiveWire]

[spoiler=HUGE FUCKING SPOILER!  SERIOUSLY, ITS A BIG ONE!  ASTRONOMICAL IN ITS IMPORTANCE!]
"Essentially the argument is that Spider-Man kills her by accident," states Stone in an interview with SFX (via Digital Spy). "So the person she loves is the person who kills her, which is the most horrifying thing. Apparently people unsubscribed to the comic book when that happened because they were just so flipped-out over it. But, of course, I want to stay true to that."

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2013/05/emma-stone-confirms-big-gwen-stacy.html


[/spoiler]


I don't know how reputable the source is, but if true then DIZ.  AMN!

Wow. Originally, I didn't like the idea the new Spider-man movies were based on the Ultimate universe (AKA, make it dark and realistic like Nolan's Dark Knight series), and as good as the first movie was, it wasn't one of those movies where I had to see it. I took my time and rented it. It didn't catch my interest at first, but if this rumor is true, I'd actually want to see it, because its one of the events that pretty much changed comics books forever. One of the greatest stories in the Spider-man series. And now, similar to when the original comics based on this plot was released, we gotta ask, "Are they actually going to do it?" If they do it, I'd watch it and eagerly wait for the next sequel to see the after effect.

[Stoner]

No doubt.  For perspective, I've still not seen ASM1 yet.  I might not bother to at all.  But if they go through with what was stated in the spoiler, I'll go see ASM2 in a heartbeat.

[DXFan27]

I'm really excited for Electro, he's always been one of my favourite Spiderman villains!

[Jonny Worldbeater]

[spoiler=HUGE FUCKING SPOILER!  SERIOUSLY, ITS A BIG ONE!  ASTRONOMICAL IN ITS IMPORTANCE!]
"Essentially the argument is that Spider-Man kills her by accident," states Stone in an interview with SFX (via Digital Spy). "So the person she loves is the person who kills her, which is the most horrifying thing. Apparently people unsubscribed to the comic book when that happened because they were just so flipped-out over it. But, of course, I want to stay true to that."

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2013/05/emma-stone-confirms-big-gwen-stacy.html


[/spoiler]

I don't know how reputable the source is, but if true then DIZ.  AMN!

If this is true, it actually ruins any enthusiasm I had for this movie.

It's a sore sticking point for me that I've talked about elsewhere, so I'll just share what I've said before.

[spoiler]

Honestly, I really don't like the whole concept of 'this character must die' that people seem to have with characters like Gwen Stacy. I mean, I know it was an incredibly significant event in the history of the Spider-Man comics and the history of comics in general, but the way I understand it, they only did that after YEARS of character development when they had taken the Gwen Stacy character and her relationship with Peter Parker to the point where they'd done everything they could with the character and the only options left were for them to get married (which they apparently thought the character 'wasn't ready for') or to kill the character off.

And honestly, with the way that the Mary Jane character was botched, first in the movies and then in the aftermath of One More Day, personally I would prefer they explore the relationship with Gwen Stacy further and possibly take that step they weren't prepared to take back in the day rather being locked down into a pattern of retreading the same ground they trod 40 years ago because suddenly THAT continuity is sacrosanct when pretty much every other piece of continuity changes like the weather.

And besides that, they've played off the whole 'Gwen Stacy' death scene a few times before. The 90's Spider-Man cartoon and the original movie immediately spring to mind as examples of that, and in neither case was it really that interesting or satisfying IMO. Hell, in the original movie they already cheated the death anyway.

I dunno, maybe it just annoys me because based on the previous movie and the EXCELLENT Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, Gwen Stacy just seemed a much more interesting, likable and compatible character for Peter Parker to end up with, and I dislike the idea of that character's fate being somehow 'locked' because of something somebody decided almost half a century ago, especially when that fate is played out without the same amount of development and weight behind it. It just feels incredibly cheap to me.

That's just my opinion anyway.

In response to a comment that it might just be a bait and switch.

I would actually greatly prefer it if they do that, but for whatever reason I get the impression that it's one of those things where it's kind of locked into place that 'we have to do it this way or else', and not just because of fanrage over them doing something different as has become evident with [spoiler]the reaction over The Mandarin in Iron Man 3[/spoiler] but because that moment in particular was so significant that it's somehow sacrilegious to even suggest not doing it.

And I also feel there's something very unsettling about the mentality that says a person, even a fictitious one HAS to die. It's something I tend to think about a lot in regards to Gwen Stacy or similar characters or the treatment of death in comics and I personally find it very disturbing.

[/spoiler]

In short, I understand that it was a significant event in comic book history, but it just doesn't sit right with me.

[Ty]

If this is true, it actually ruins any enthusiasm I had for this movie.

It's a sore sticking point for me that I've talked about elsewhere, so I'll just share what I've said before.

[spoiler]
In response to a comment that it might just be a bait and switch.
[/spoiler]

In short, I understand that it was a significant event in comic book history, but it just doesn't sit right with me.

I dont think its the fact she dies which is what people are looking for, its the how she dies that a lot of people want to see.

Certain heroes have certain traits people love

Wolverine, deep haunted past with patchy memory and extended life = reckless, attitude, anti-hero

Superman, raised with good morale values = can he be corrupted?

Batman, saw parents die, can't form relationships with anyone but little boys = batman

For me, spiderman, kills Gwen Stacy is the super next level to 'great power brings great responsibility'. The aftermath of killing her is imo more important than the killing her, people didn't read the comics to see her die, they read them to know how he's react.

[Jonny Worldbeater]

I dont think its the fact she dies which is what people are looking for, its the how she dies that a lot of people want to see.

Certain heroes have certain traits people love

Wolverine, deep haunted past with patchy memory and extended life = reckless, attitude, anti-hero

Superman, raised with good morale values = can he be corrupted?

Batman, saw parents die, can't form relationships with anyone but little boys = batman

For me, spiderman, kills Gwen Stacy is the super next level to 'great power brings great responsibility'. The aftermath of killing her is imo more important than the killing her, people didn't read the comics to see her die, they read them to know how he's react.

Which just makes it all the more disturbing to me because it's exactly why Gwen Stacy falls into the category of Women in Refrigerators. Like you just said, it makes it so the death of the character is not significant, but how it serves as a plot device for someone else's character development.

And besides, with Spider-Man in particular, killing off characters or making them weak and vulnerable as a plot device to serve the main character is something that is done WAY too often. [spoiler]Peter's parents get killed before the story even begins, Uncle Ben gets killed to motivate him use his powers for good, then there's the slew of people close to him that get killed off or made vulnerable for the purposes of his character development - Betty Brant's brother, Gwen Stacy's father, Gwen herself, then Norman Osborn, Harry Osborn, Aunt May has been wounded or killed a number of times, Felicia Hardy has been stripped of her powers, near-fatally wounded, and apparently drugged and raped as well, Mary Jane has been frequently attacked and in some versions taken Gwen Stacy's place, there's been a number of Elseworld tales and vision of the future stories where she's been killed off (including the disgustingly depressing story of Reign that centered around a lone, guilt-stricken Spidey agonising over the fact that he 'killed his wife with his radioactive sperm'. Yes, this was a thing.) and the less said about One More Day the better, then there was the whole clone saga where countless a bunch of characters were brought up and killed off again, including a cloned Gwen Stacy, Ben Riley, the clone of Peter Parker, and Peter & Mary Jane's unborn child. Hell, even Peter himself has been killed off in no less than 3 separate occasions in the last 10 years, and all for the sake of pushing the franchise motto of 'with great power comes great responsibility', which ironically seems to be a lesson Peter never actually learns.[/spoiler]

Nobody is questioning that the Gwen Stacy story was significant in its time, nor should they. But maybe what they should be questioning is WHY it was significant and whether or not merely being significant justifies it.

[LiveWire]

Well, it was significant because it was unlikely at the time a superhero would fail. Personally, with the introduction of Electro and Rhino, I don't think they will do it in this movie, but if a third one is done, its possible with introducing Norman Osbourne. (Hoping they don't use Ultimate Green Goblin, but I think Ultimate Electro was pretty smart). But it wasn't just the fact they killed her off. But it was the fact Spider-man was careless and responsible for her death, at least according to physics, and its not letting someone die, its thinking you did everything you could, but realizing there is another way. I didn't like Amazing Spiderman 1 because they made him seem really cocky, which while true to the comics, I didn't really like and maybe that's why he isn't my favorite superhero. But this type of event did, in fact, knock Spiderman off his high horse as  a hero, and that makes room for great story telling.

The thing with superhero movies are that it makes you think they are invincible and not threatened, which kills the suspense, because in the face of evil, they are still arrogant. But this story-line? When arrogance backfires and a hero must question himself, that leaves him vulnerable and adds depth to the story, rather than just knowing that the hero will when and the only question is, "how?"

[Jonny Worldbeater]

Well, it was significant because it was unlikely at the time a superhero would fail. Personally, with the introduction of Electro and Rhino, I don't think they will do it in this movie, but if a third one is done, its possible with introducing Norman Osbourne. (Hoping they don't use Ultimate Green Goblin, but I think Ultimate Electro was pretty smart). But it wasn't just the fact they killed her off. But it was the fact Spider-man was careless and responsible for her death, at least according to physics, and its not letting someone die, its thinking you did everything you could, but realizing there is another way. I didn't like Amazing Spiderman 1 because they made him seem really cocky, which while true to the comics, I didn't really like and maybe that's why he isn't my favorite superhero. But this type of event did, in fact, knock Spiderman off his high horse as  a hero, and that makes room for great story telling.

The thing with superhero movies are that it makes you think they are invincible and not threatened, which kills the suspense, because in the face of evil, they are still arrogant. But this story-line? When arrogance backfires and a hero must question himself, that leaves him vulnerable and adds depth to the story, rather than just knowing that the hero will when and the only question is, "how?"

See, now that just speaks to exactly why I have a problem with it. Because it's not about Gwen Stacy, it's all about Spider-Man's reaction to it, and the fact that it's really just a cheap way to create some drama without having to earn it.

There are literally dozens of possible ways a good writer could achieve the goal of 'teaching humility' to a character without having to do it as a reaction to something that happens to another character. For starters, they could learn that lesson as a result of something that happens to THEM. And as I said before, it's especially galling when they do go to that well so many times to 'teach the lesson' to the character, and yet continue to write him in such a way that he never actually learns from it.

Or maybe it's the fact that they clearly had a good character and a good dynamic with the romance between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, and than take it to the next level and explore that relationship and what could become of it, they chose to take easy way out by just cutting the character off and ending any potential future stories they could've done with her, disregarding bringing her back, which just cheapens the death further. We've seen over time just how cheap and meaningless death has become in comics because they have leant on the crutch of killing off characters to create that unearned drama to try and drive up sales for literally decades.

And it says something to me when a character is brought up that the first reaction to that character being killed off isn't 'why' but 'when'. I find something very mean-spirited and cruel in the mentality that says a character 'HAS to die' based on an arbitrary decision made half a century ago. For one thing, it stifles creativity when you lock people it preconceived roles with no allowance for change, and if a character is 'destined to die' it discourages you from getting invested in them because no matter what happens to them, they're fucked no matter what, and it discourages investment even more when their death isn't even about them but just a tool to motivate someone else.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

[LiveWire]

I can see what you mean by that. But if you think about the bigger picture, what are superheros suppose to do? Save lives. And when is it do they fail? It's when they couldn't. Personally, I felt her death was well done, but it was when they "cloned" her, that, to me, her character started to lose importance. I believe this story line was justified because it shows that every superhero has a weakness. And I'm not talking about magic, Kryptonite, or .... guns, whatever. But the death of a loved one. Is it not safe to say that Peter's Uncle's death was not necessary for him to learn about responsibility and want to don the suit? One thing I like about comics is they have alternate universes and have tested these events like what if Uncle Ben or Gwen Stacy hadn't died, and the changes are pretty big.

With every mistake, we learn more about the character's strength and weaknesses. Does someone have to die? Probably not, but death is something that is very real and relatable. If we look back at Spiderman 2, the one with Maguire, its true he kind of lost his powers and that did test his humanity, but can we relate to it? To certain degrees, maybe, but its not as powerful as the death of a loved one.

The comic to me, was about death without warning, which to me, the more we talk about it and the rumors spreading, is kind of killing it. lol. I'm not saying you are wrong that its done for the drama. I'm not saying you are wrong that its cruel. Will people get angry about it? Maybe, but I can bet people will be talking about it.

Personally, I don't think her death was in vein and pointless for media exposure, because in the end, it taught Spiderman a lesson that he would carry on in his relationship with Mary Jane. I, for one, never really invested in the Gwen Stacy character, because she is what she is meant to be, a support character. We should be investing in Spider-man, and I think that event helps in that.

I just believe, if they don't write off Stacy while introducing Mary Jane, you're gonna get a cliche happy ending, where both girls fight for him, and everyone lives happily ever after, and that to me is crap. We can argue over whether or not Gwen should or shouldn't die, but I think your argument that it shouldn't be about Spider-man doesn't justify it because one way or another, Spider-man is the center of attention, whether its juggling between fighting bad guys or dealing with his relationship, and when both worlds collide, I don't expect a happy ending, otherwise, it is pretty much like every superhero move, a cliche.

Spider-man and Gwen Stacy's death is the one time in comic to challenge this, and I don't see why they shouldn't challenge that in films as well.

[Mjölnir]

While I don't think it has to be done, I'd applaud them for having the balls to kill off Gwen in the movies. It's a gutsy move, honestly. And, it's one of those character defining moments, in my opinion, for both Gwen and Peter. It adds to Peter's mythos and it makes Gwen all the more a tragic character.

Albeit I will say I almost don't want to see it in this movie. Or, the next one. The Green Goblin/Spiderman rivalry was built up and made into a big deal before it even happened. It was essentially the high note & climax to their feud. When it went from something of an almost silver age, champion of good versus visage of evil to something darker, more personal, and cerebral.

To waste that by opening up with it would be the wrestling equivalent of a spotfest. It'd be neat, but it wouldn't have as much meaning.

[Ty]

The way I see it, this is Peter's story. It's not the story of Gwen, Mary Jane, Aunt May, or Uncle, this is all about Peter.

The death of Gwen is the continuation of the death of his Uncle. In one he made the choice not to act and the consequence was the death of a loved one. In the other, he chose to act and the consequence was the death of a loved one. This creates the conflict imo