"The Amazing Spiderman" Sequel

[Jonny Worldbeater]

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.

See, now, is it actually a gutsy move when the only reason they're doing it is because they did it in the comics? Or is it just a calculated marketing ploy?

Is it really a risk to do exactly what's expected?

You could even make the argument that the original story was essentially a marketing ploy, using shock tactics to push sales. And it seems to be a pretty strong argument considering how often comics resort to this sort of cheap, soap opera storytelling to try to get people to read, to the point where death in the medium of superhero comics is kind of a hollow joke now for the extent to which it has been overexploited.

I think you can easily make the case that the reason the Death of Gwen Stacy was so significant to comics even when the death of characters was a regular occurence back THEN was because she was a major character built up over years, as was her relationship with Peter. And killing off a character like that was something that was virtually never done.

The thing that I feel is most disturbing about it is how, rather than the significance of the death being defined by the character, we've kind of come to this mindset where now the character is defined by the death. So now somehow it doesn't matter what Gwen's character is, she is defined as 'the girl that dies so Peter can have tragic backstory', and I just think that's kind of fucking bullshit.

Especially because, based on the exposure I've had to the character through the last movie, and to a greater extent, the aptly titled Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, she is a great character, but because of this arbitrary 'rule' that character kind of doesn't matter as much as this idea that she 'HAS' to die. i just think that's such narrow-minded, unimaginative, circular thinking to say that instead of taking a good character and branching off into different avenues with it and seeing where they lead, we have to lock them into this rigid, hopeless pattern of life and death that just repeats itself over and over again.

I just get this horrible image of a person having to live out this terrible cycle of fate, all the while having swarms of people looking on, believing it to be somehow 'necessary' and it just rips my heart out.

I dunno, I can't really express my thoughts and feelings on the subject as clearly as I'd like to.

Maybe it's the way writers treat characters as expendable. Maybe it's the idea of using one character's tragedy as a dramatic crutch for another. Maybe it's the idea that the death is not something you can just do. Maybe it's the idea that it can't possibly have the same meaning. Maybe it's the idea that it's somehow become an obligation.

Maybe it's just that I like the character, and I don't want to see it end.

Or maybe it's because I'm still dealing with a death in my own family just last year, and the subject hits a little too close to home.

All I know is, the more I think about it, the more it brings me down.

[Ty]

See, now, is it actually a gutsy move when the only reason they're doing it is because they did it in the comics? Or is it just a calculated marketing ploy?

Is it really a risk to do exactly what's expected?

You could even make the argument that the original story was essentially a marketing ploy, using shock tactics to push sales. And it seems to be a pretty strong argument considering how often comics resort to this sort of cheap, soap opera storytelling to try to get people to read, to the point where death in the medium of superhero comics is kind of a hollow joke now for the extent to which it has been overexploited.

I think you can easily make the case that the reason the Death of Gwen Stacy was so significant to comics even when the death of characters was a regular occurence back THEN was because she was a major character built up over years, as was her relationship with Peter. And killing off a character like that was something that was virtually never done.

The thing that I feel is most disturbing about it is how, rather than the significance of the death being defined by the character, we've kind of come to this mindset where now the character is defined by the death. So now somehow it doesn't matter what Gwen's character is, she is defined as 'the girl that dies so Peter can have tragic backstory', and I just think that's kind of fucking bullshit.

Especially because, based on the exposure I've had to the character through the last movie, and to a greater extent, the aptly titled Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, she is a great character, but because of this arbitrary 'rule' that character kind of doesn't matter as much as this idea that she 'HAS' to die. i just think that's such narrow-minded, unimaginative, circular thinking to say that instead of taking a good character and branching off into different avenues with it and seeing where they lead, we have to lock them into this rigid, hopeless pattern of life and death that just repeats itself over and over again.

I just get this horrible image of a person having to live out this terrible cycle of fate, all the while having swarms of people looking on, believing it to be somehow 'necessary' and it just rips my heart out.

I dunno, I can't really express my thoughts and feelings on the subject as clearly as I'd like to.

Maybe it's the way writers treat characters as expendable. Maybe it's the idea of using one character's tragedy as a dramatic crutch for another. Maybe it's the idea that the death is not something you can just do. Maybe it's the idea that it can't possibly have the same meaning. Maybe it's the idea that it's somehow become an obligation.

Maybe it's just that I like the character, and I don't want to see it end.

Or maybe it's because I'm still dealing with a death in my own family just last year, and the subject hits a little too close to home.

Maybe swerve and she wont die in the end.

The latest batman movie, Bane was in the comics the guy who escaped from jail and broke batman's back, even my wife who hates comics knew just that about bane. Then the swerve happened and I giggled for about 2 minutes because it was awesome...

you know, maybe they'll kill MJ

[GM Franchise]

I hope the swerve is the scene with Rhino's pants being pulled down is the swerve and isn't in the movie at all...

[Stoner]

See, now, is it actually a gutsy move when the only reason they're doing it is because they did it in the comics? Or is it just a calculated marketing ploy?

Is it really a risk to do exactly what's expected?

You could even make the argument that the original story was essentially a marketing ploy, using shock tactics to push sales. And it seems to be a pretty strong argument considering how often comics resort to this sort of cheap, soap opera storytelling to try to get people to read, to the point where death in the medium of superhero comics is kind of a hollow joke now for the extent to which it has been overexploited.

I think you can easily make the case that the reason the Death of Gwen Stacy was so significant to comics even when the death of characters was a regular occurence back THEN was because she was a major character built up over years, as was her relationship with Peter. And killing off a character like that was something that was virtually never done.

The thing that I feel is most disturbing about it is how, rather than the significance of the death being defined by the character, we've kind of come to this mindset where now the character is defined by the death. So now somehow it doesn't matter what Gwen's character is, she is defined as 'the girl that dies so Peter can have tragic backstory', and I just think that's kind of fucking bullshit.

Especially because, based on the exposure I've had to the character through the last movie, and to a greater extent, the aptly titled Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, she is a great character, but because of this arbitrary 'rule' that character kind of doesn't matter as much as this idea that she 'HAS' to die. i just think that's such narrow-minded, unimaginative, circular thinking to say that instead of taking a good character and branching off into different avenues with it and seeing where they lead, we have to lock them into this rigid, hopeless pattern of life and death that just repeats itself over and over again.

I just get this horrible image of a person having to live out this terrible cycle of fate, all the while having swarms of people looking on, believing it to be somehow 'necessary' and it just rips my heart out.

I dunno, I can't really express my thoughts and feelings on the subject as clearly as I'd like to.

Maybe it's the way writers treat characters as expendable. Maybe it's the idea of using one character's tragedy as a dramatic crutch for another. Maybe it's the idea that the death is not something you can just do. Maybe it's the idea that it can't possibly have the same meaning. Maybe it's the idea that it's somehow become an obligation.

Maybe it's just that I like the character, and I don't want to see it end.

Or maybe it's because I'm still dealing with a death in my own family just last year, and the subject hits a little too close to home.

All I know is, the more I think about it, the more it brings me down.

I didn't see anyone complaining when whats-her-face died in Dark Knight.  Because it was good for the story.  It developed the characters of Batman, Joker and Harvey Dent all in one swoop.  Whether or not Gwen dies is going to be irrelevant.  What matters is the story.  Will it help the story for her to die?  If so, then it will be worth it. If not, then and only then does it become an issue.

[Marq]

See, now, is it actually a gutsy move when the only reason they're doing it is because they did it in the comics? Or is it just a calculated marketing ploy?

Is it really a risk to do exactly what's expected?

You could even make the argument that the original story was essentially a marketing ploy, using shock tactics to push sales. And it seems to be a pretty strong argument considering how often comics resort to this sort of cheap, soap opera storytelling to try to get people to read, to the point where death in the medium of superhero comics is kind of a hollow joke now for the extent to which it has been overexploited.

I think you can easily make the case that the reason the Death of Gwen Stacy was so significant to comics even when the death of characters was a regular occurence back THEN was because she was a major character built up over years, as was her relationship with Peter. And killing off a character like that was something that was virtually never done.

The thing that I feel is most disturbing about it is how, rather than the significance of the death being defined by the character, we've kind of come to this mindset where now the character is defined by the death. So now somehow it doesn't matter what Gwen's character is, she is defined as 'the girl that dies so Peter can have tragic backstory', and I just think that's kind of fucking bullshit.

Especially because, based on the exposure I've had to the character through the last movie, and to a greater extent, the aptly titled Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, she is a great character, but because of this arbitrary 'rule' that character kind of doesn't matter as much as this idea that she 'HAS' to die. i just think that's such narrow-minded, unimaginative, circular thinking to say that instead of taking a good character and branching off into different avenues with it and seeing where they lead, we have to lock them into this rigid, hopeless pattern of life and death that just repeats itself over and over again.

I just get this horrible image of a person having to live out this terrible cycle of fate, all the while having swarms of people looking on, believing it to be somehow 'necessary' and it just rips my heart out.

I dunno, I can't really express my thoughts and feelings on the subject as clearly as I'd like to.

Maybe it's the way writers treat characters as expendable. Maybe it's the idea of using one character's tragedy as a dramatic crutch for another. Maybe it's the idea that the death is not something you can just do. Maybe it's the idea that it can't possibly have the same meaning. Maybe it's the idea that it's somehow become an obligation.

Maybe it's just that I like the character, and I don't want to see it end.

Or maybe it's because I'm still dealing with a death in my own family just last year, and the subject hits a little too close to home.

All I know is, the more I think about it, the more it brings me down.

I dunno. Being sick of the idea of them killing off Gwen comes off like someone complaining, "Do Romeo and Juliet HAVE to die?" In my opinion, Romeo and Juliet not dying removes itself from the very point of the tragedy, much like how Gwen Stacy not dying takes away from the essence of the character and her importance to the mythology. Sure, R&J don't have to die -- but in my opinion? That ain't Romeo and Juliet.

And this is gonna sound kinda dickish -- characters are completely expendable. Always have been. In Gwen Stacy's case, if the writers wrote her well, if Emma was a boss, and if Marc Webb did a fine job getting his vision on screen -- her death would be anything BUT hollow. THAT story, a story straight from the source material, is the story he wants to tell. And why shouldn't he? You've got the opportunity to tell an iconic Spider-Man story, and you're gonna say, "Nah. Let's do something different?" Fuck that! If someone said to me, "Marc, we're trusting you with the death of Jason Todd in a Batman movie," best believe the first thing I won't be saying is, "...but what about we try keeping him alive?"

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. On one side, Marvel's gonna get flak saying, "Why are you moving away from the story?" The other, it's guys lamenting, "You've done it before." Fuck, man, let them be!

And for the love of God -- if writers treating characters as expendable bothers you, do yourself a favor and never, ever get into the "Game of Thrones" universe.

[LiveWire]

PHIL COULSON HAD TO DIE, DAMN IT!!

[Triple B]

I would be ok with them bringing in Mary Jane Watson from the first 3 movies played by Kirsten Dunst again, and kill HER off instead of Stacy.

[Strike]

And for the love of God -- if writers treating characters as expendable bothers you, do yourself a favor and never, ever get into the "Game of Thrones" universe.

Words to live by.

[Fnord]

Sony Announces Release Dates for "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" and "The Amazing Spider-Man 4"



Sony Pictures is still shooting "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" in New York, but has now announced that it's moving forward with the next two installments in the franchise.

According to the studio, "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" will be released in theaters on June 10th, 2016. And the fourth installment will follow on May 4th, 2018. "Spider-Man is our most important, most successful, and most beloved franchise," said Sony. "so we're thrilled that we are in a position to lock in these prime release dates over the next five years."

"The Amazing Spider-Man" hit theaters last year and grossed $750 million worldwide. No word if Marc Webb will be asked to return for the next two films. But since Sony held on to Sam Raimi for an entire trilogy, it's likely that Webb will continue directing.

Source: Sony

[Crazy Kyd]

I just read that Shailene Woodley, the actress who is Mary Jane Watson was cut from the second movie, and will be introduced in the third instead.

[Fnord]

Andrew Garfield Wants Spider-Man to Be Gay in "The Amazing Spider-Man 3"



In a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly, Andrew Garfield spoke about replacing Shailene Woodley (The Descendants) as Mary Jane Watson in "The Amazing Spider-Man 3." The actor has a good idea of who he wants to play Mary Jane, "Chronicles" star Michael B. Jordan.

Garfield spoke to producer Matt Tolmach about making Spidey gay/bisexual. "I was like, 'What if MJ is a dude?' Why can't we discover that Peter is exploring his sexuality? It's hardly even groundbreaking! So why can't he be gay? Why can't he be into boys?"

He continued: "I've been obsessed with Michael B. Jordan since 'The Wire.' He's so charismatic and talented. It would be even better — we'd have interracial bisexuality!"

Garfield went on to say that this type of decision is not his to make and he's not sure whether Sony Pictures would be interested in making Spider-Man gay.

Source: EW

[Stoner]

Look.  I've got nothing against gay people.  But Peter isn't gay.  Hulking?  Yes.  Wiccan?  Also yes.  Peter?

No.

Doing this would only serve to alienate SM fans for a minor publicity stunt.

[Ty]

This has nothing to do with him being gay or not, its just a bad idea that they would do a shit job of making. No, just no.

My cousin is named Mary-Jane Watson Parker, imagine the horror she'll have to find out that they recast her namesake as a dude, she would get destroyed in school (she already gets teased about the pot reference in her name.)

Like, whats next? Are they going to focus an entire trilogy on the fact peter was sexually abused? Nothing against it but comic book movies and maturity dont go hand in hand, it would be pure exploitative not a true romance

[Kieran King]

Bad idea. It would just scream publicity stunt rather than make a conscious effort to speak up for gay rights or anything like that.

[Ty]

Bad idea. It would just scream publicity stunt rather than make a conscious effort to speak up for gay rights or anything like that.

You said what I tried to in 1/4 of the words, good job sir