Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51
  1. #1
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,804

    Default In Your Face Jam - May 7, 2014

    After seeing "The Amazing Spider-Man 2," Brett wonders why blind rigidity to its source material outweighed the potential to tell a genuinely progressive super hero tale.


    Full article here.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Gwen Stacy is a function of Peter Parker's story, just like any of the other supporting characters. In her case, her function is to give Spider-Man someone to love, which when she's put in jeopardy raises the stakes beyond what you get when your average joe is mugged. The ultimate way to cash in on those stakes is to lose her entirely, which forces enormous character development in your central character. Everything in a story featuring a protagonist is there to serve the protagonist. It has nothing to do with her gender, except that men are more likely to feel that kind of intense love and attachment towards women than towards men. If Peter Parker loved Harry Osborn more than Gwen Stacy, he would've been the one falling from that bridge.
    Last edited by Jonah Weiland; 05-08-2014 at 04:33 PM. Reason: Obnoxious comment telling us whom we should hire. Got personal.

  3. #3
    Cry Havok! havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    94

    Default

    I hope Spider-Man 3 ends with Peter snapping Harry's neck.

  4. #4
    Senior Member harashkupo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    721

    Default

    I understand the whole 'fridging' concept but does this really count? In the first movie two characters were killed to further Peter's story and that seemed like it was their only contribution to the narrative.
    DIS GUY MUST BE A ALIEN OR SUTIN - gerybaboona

  5. #5

    Default

    "As far as I'm concerned, Stone's portrayal of Gwen Stacy needs to be celebrated on the same level as Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark and Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. She's that good in the role."

    So true -- Stone nailed it! And considering their innumerable plot deviations from the original story lines it really would have been great cinema to build up to her death and then LET HER LIVE! Certainly much more dramatic and having ramifications that would carry over to Peter. The director bugged (no pun intended) and said they had to stay true to Spider-Man's arc as his film then raced through to its anticlimactic end. So Peter's emotional growth was essentially staring at Gwen's grave for several seasons and listening to May's pep talk?!

    Aw heck, I just want to see more of Stone's Gwen!
    Last edited by DocSpin; 05-07-2014 at 04:30 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member RobinFan4880's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    The main character is Peter Parker. Everything around that character feeds into either the plot or making him a more believable/deep character. No one complains about Uncle Ben getting fridged. That happened long before Gwen was killed. Uncle Ben's death is Peter's raison d'etre, Gwen's death reaffirms his commitment to a dangerous, selfless and thankless lifestyle. Both death's are incredibly important to the Spider-Man mythos.

    Having said that... I don't know if it was really necessary to kill Gwen off in the film. We already went through an entire trilogy where Gwen was a side character (at best), so her importance to the cinema version of Spidey was not necessarily as meaningful as her comic counterpart. Plus, Emma Stone was doing so well. It is sad see such an impressive actor (when there is such a dearth of female actors that have been shown to succeed in the superhero genre) be eliminated from a successful movie franchise.

    Regardless, if I were the writers and producers of comic book movies, I would be pulling my hair out right now. The fans become vociferously angry when super hero movies do not follow the source material closely (X-3, Man of Steel, etc.) yet at the same time become just as vociferously angry when they DO stick closely to the source material. They cannot win (unless your name is Joss Whedon).
    Last edited by RobinFan4880; 05-07-2014 at 04:47 PM.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GLFan5994 View Post
    Regardless, if I were the writers and producers of comic book movies, I would be pulling my hair out right now. The fans become vociferously angry when super hero movies do not follow the source material closely (X-3, Man of Steel, etc.) yet at the same time become just as vociferously angry when they DO stick closely to the source material. They cannot win (unless your name is Joss Whedon).
    For what it's worth, I don't know of anybody that complained because about X-Men 3 because it didn't follow the comics. People complained about X3 largely because it was awful by most metrics you would judge a movie by. I even feel like Man of Steel would have gotten more of a pass with its major departure from the comics if the actual movie surrounding had been better.

  8. #8
    Hugger of Puppies Nirikins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sammi View Post
    Gwen Stacy is a function of Peter Parker's story, just like any of the other supporting characters. In her case, her function is to give Spider-Man someone to love, which when she's put in jeopardy raises the stakes beyond what you get when your average joe is mugged. The ultimate way to cash in on those stakes is to lose her entirely, which forces enormous character development in your central character. Everything in a story featuring a protagonist is there to serve the protagonist. It has nothing to do with her gender, except that men are more likely to feel that kind of intense love and attachment towards women than towards men. If Peter Parker loved Harry Osborn more than Gwen Stacy, he would've been the one falling from that bridge.
    Excellent first post, sammi! I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. The whole women in fridges issue is a legitimate concern for discussion. Trying to make it fit here feels like its being stretched to incredulity in order to fit the new politically correct mantra of this site while doing the actual issue a disservice.
    Last edited by Jonah Weiland; 05-08-2014 at 04:33 PM. Reason: Edited out quoted piece deleted earlier.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nirikins View Post
    The whole women in fridges issue is a legitimate concern for discussion.
    My point extends to the idea of "women in fridges" as well. There's nothing that a person fears losing more than a loved one. Men love their wives or girlfriends more than anyone. This can be exploited for drama, character development, or horror. Friends, family, and lovers are functions of the protagonist's story. I was devastated when Alex DeWitt was murdered and stuffed in that fridge, and this was the intention of the artist. It escalated the stakes and strengthened Green Lantern's struggle. The only reason it was a woman in that fridge is because he loved her most of all, and thus would have the most impact on him.

    Carelessly calling things sexism or "issues" without really understanding them distracts us from real sexism and real issues.
    Last edited by sammi; 05-07-2014 at 07:37 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    while i completely love Gwen's character (even before in the comics), i think the death here was handled well enough that i could accept that they had to do it. however if ASM3 comes along with Mary Jane and all of a sudden like Gwen never existed, MASSIVE OUTRAGE incoming! in fact i hope there won't be a love interest at all. after what happened, it would be hard to swallow if suddenly there's another girl.

    if anything, maybe they could do the Jedi Ghosting again with Gwen like her dad in ASM2. and take a step a bit further with Peter actually talking to the ghost even if it was just his imagination (and not a spirit or something)

  11. #11
    Senior Member Exciter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    423

    Default

    I wouldn't really want to see Spider-Man move to London.

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sammi View Post
    My point extends to the idea of "women in fridges" as well. There's nothing that a person fears losing more than a loved one. Men love their wives or girlfriends more than anyone. This can be exploited for drama, character development, or horror. Friends, family, and lovers are functions of the protagonist's story. I was devastated when Alex DeWitt was murdered and stuffed in that fridge, and this was the intention of the artist. It escalated the stakes and strengthened Green Lantern's struggle. The only reason it was a woman in that fridge is because he loved her most of all, and thus would have the most impact on him.

    Carelessly calling things sexism or "issues" without really understanding them distracts us from real sexism and real issues.
    The column isn't questioning why side characters get killed off. Everyone understands what you're saying here. The article's complaint is about:

    a) How often women in comics tend to get this role (and how lousy that is); this isn't the article's main complaint because it's already been pointed out time and time again.

    b) How that trend of fridging women has changed the context of Gwen's death; in the '70s it was shocking and progressive. Now it's typical, I think it's pretty safe to say most Spidey fans saw it coming, and it's just a great character thrown away unnecessarily. You can cite adherence to the source material as a reason, but I'm not buying it. Harry's character arc and the new origin with Peter's parents hardly match up to the classic stories.

    c) How Gwen's death undermined a character arc that would have otherwise had a strong, positive message.

    Not to detract from the point that Gwen's death is absolutely devastating for Peter. It really is. There are some strong emotional beats there. But could they have gone without it? I think that they could have.

    Personally, I was okay with Gwen's death; it was pretty heavily foreshadowed since the end of the first movie, so it's not like it came as a surprise. I would have been impressed if they did something more creative with her, though.

  13. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FriendlySymbioteVenomMan View Post
    The column isn't questioning why side characters get killed off. Everyone understands what you're saying here. The article's complaint is about:

    a) How often women in comics tend to get this role (and how lousy that is)

    b) How that trend of fridging women has changed the context of Gwen's death; in the '70s it was shocking and progressive. Now it's typical

    c) How Gwen's death undermined a character arc that would have otherwise had a strong, positive message.
    a) Why is that lousy? Friends, family, and lovers in peril is an extremely strong tool for motivating your protagonist. For the third time, the "lovers" category is the strongest there, and for the third time, a heterosexual male character's lover is going to be a woman. The logic didn't start with "What shitty things can we do to women?", it starts with "What does our character care about the most?"

    b) Not typical enough to stop blowing audience's minds. Big, likable characters suddenly dying off is a hallmark of a certain TV show, and people rave about those moments. And everyone I know (who hasn't read the comics) raved about Gwen's death - it's still effective.

    c) Gwen doesn't have a character arc. She's pretty, funny, smart, and Peter loves her. That's her character. The only thing that changes in the movies from the moment we meet her until she dies is that she falls in love with Peter, and her father dies. And neither of those things change her character. There's no arc, no matter how well Emma Stone played her. She's a supporting character.
    Last edited by sammi; 05-07-2014 at 09:10 PM.

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    20

    Default

    I don't see why people are not considering that this story is a vast improvement in terms of progressive vs the 1973 classic version. Stacy puts herself in danger willingly, and pay the ultimate price. It's as simple as that. An average person went up against a supervillain and died. Same thing happened with Coulson in the Avengers. To brush aside Stacy's heroism and agency in the final battle of the movie misses the point. Both Coulson and Stacy died as heroes because they were in over the heads. But they gladly carried that responsibility.

  15. #15
    pygophile and podophile Dr. Cheesesteak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DocSpin View Post
    Aw heck, I just want to see more of Stone's Gwen!
    if "Gwen" is slang for...

    Anyway, this line really stood out to me:
    "a super hero making a personal sacrifice for the woman he loves instead of the other way around? Holy original concepts, Spider-Man!" I don't care what medium - movies, comics, TV show - I'd love to see a change in scenery or pace or even purpose for a superhero due to his significant other.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •