do you think they should have killed Gwen Stacy?

Question

looking back that really hurt spider-man and he may never forgive himself

Answer 1

No, Marvel should not have killed Gwen Stacy. They may have realized, too late, that they threw away a good thing. Fortunately (or not, depending on your POV) they had already mentioned Mary Jane as a possible substitute.

By the time they had gotten into the whole return from death thing (starting with Captain America, who was one of their biggest moneymakers back during the war years, and one they desperately wanted to revive) it was too late to revive Gwen. MJ was already embedded in the storyline and in the readers’ consciouness..

However, there was one thing they could do. The rat-finks could make Peter Parker’s life more miserable! So they brought her back as a clone, courtesy of they college professor, I forget his name, but he became the Jackal. He had always desired her, and wanted her for his lust-toy, and naturally Peter wanted to protect her from the bad guy. IIRC, she eventually died again.

Marvel doesn’t want Peter Parker to ever forgive himself. You see, they are in the business of making money, not entertaining us! Since most of us were not born great (son of Jor-El, or son of Odin) and did not have the self-discipline to make ourselves great (Bruce Wayne or Stephen Strange), we are still waiting for the third option: having greatness thrust upon us (being bit by a spider, or being given a power ring by a dying alien.)

(You may want to check out my recent best answer on this same topic.)

How does this connect? Marvel wanted to make superheroes that the readers (kids) could empathize with and relate to. Since most of the kids who read their comics didn’t have super powers and wouldn’t ever have super powers, they gave up on the admirable (heroic) moral character that so many comic book heroes had up until then (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman.) They kept only Captain America as their sole example of that species.

Marvel switched over to so-called ‘realistic’ super heroes— Peter Parker had all the problems of real kids, plus guilt from not using his powers responsibly, and having to hide his secret identity, for Aunt May’s sake. The Fantastic Four acted like a family of alcoholics! On and on you can see how they paved the way for the grim and gritty ‘anti-hero’, the flawed hero for flawed readers, who did not care about good and evil, just wanted exciting stories, and didn’t care if the good guys won. Nowadays, almost every Marvel character has their grim and gritty side, their tainted, suspect, darker nature that they have to struggle to keep under control.

Marvel has completely shifted the super-paradigm, from that of shining examples of courage, determination and incorruptibility to bitterness, stubbornness, and being nastier than all the other SOB’s in the valley of death.

So we have had an entire generation of comic readers who, since they don’t have super powers and are unlikely ever to have them, imitate their heroes in the only way they can—by being dysfunctional. Marvel made heros for the kid with anger management problems, and they called him Hulk or Juggernaut.

This way, the kid doesn’t feel he has to struggle to calm himself, and say “I want to be just like my hero, Mister Discipline ™ !” He can just say “Hulk Smash!”, or “NOTHING can stop the Juggernaut!” and give in to it, because Marvel Gives him approval to be like that.

Similarly, Marvel made heroes for kids with substance abuse problems, and they called them Cloak and Dagger.

This way, kids who had problems with that kind of thing didn’t have to say “I’m going to give this up so I can be like The Unadulterated ™ !” They can just say, “Well, maybe SOMEday this stuff will give me super powers, to, and in the meantime I can still dream, can’t I?”

Marvel has made some strides toward eliminating Captain America’s Super Soldier Serum, because they didn’t want to change the nature of the successful character too much. And drunk driving is too evident a problem for them to be able to get away with Iron Man continuing to operate HIS machine drunk, so they had to give up that shot at making him dark and gritty. Although, I don’t think they realize, what they have done in recent days… making him so proud and absolutely certain that he can’t be wrong, is just as big a mistake, even if it is going in the opposite direction. He is unbalanced.

I didn’t mean to go on so long. Just understand, that Marvel is in business to make money, and all the character changes, all the stories and plot lines, all the politics and conflicts (like Civil War) are carefully scripted out in their offices, to get money out of our pockets and into theirs. Just remember than and you won’t be surprised at anything they do.

They didn’t intend to change the outlook of America’s youth. They were just trying to make money. All they wanted was to beat DC.

17 JAN 07, 1552 hrs, GMT.

Answer 2

gwen should of killed spiderman in the movie

Answer 3

Yeah, I think Marvel did right by killing Gwen, because no one saw that coming and it added more depth to the character. And it was one more tragedy thrown in his already hard knocked life. Besides, looking at Spider-Man's history and continuity, even if Gwen Stacey would had survived, there would have been some kind of dilemma that would have caused her death later on in the books.

Answer 4

The question was answer in The Amazing Spider-man 2. So sad!

Answer 5

DC still rules

Answer 6

the real question is about

Answer 7

I don't think so