Spider-Man Shocker! How Marc Webb’s Sequel Played the Twist Everyone Saw Coming

amazing spider-man 2

REARVIEW: The biggest surprise of 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' wasn't what would happen, but when and how [Spoilers ahead!]

Imagine going into “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” completely blind. For those lucky audiences, Electro is probably the least shocking thing about the webslinger sequel. (Spoiler alert!) Imagine their surprise when they discover that Gwen Stacy doesn’t make it out alive.

On the other hand, for those who know a thing or two about Spider-Man mythology, the question was never if Peter Parker’s teenage love interest would die, but when and how. Naturally, some were surprised that Gwen survived the first film. Others thought maybe director Marc Webb and his writing team would drag the romance out to the upcoming third installment. These are all fair concerns, and not just for fanboys — they cut to the very essence of the storytelling in this latest cycle of Spider-Man movies.

Whatever your feelings toward Sam Raimi’s trilogy (I consider the first two among the best examples in a genre for which I have only limited patience), it’s clear that the way Webb set out to differentiate his otherwise vanilla 2012 reboot was by emphasizing the romance. From the moment Sony honcho Amy Pascal opted to start the franchise over (as opposed to continuing where Raimi’s messy third movie left off), some defended her decision by making the analogy to Shakespeare’s plays, which are constantly being remounted. But Spider-Man was hardly Shakespeare — or was it?

Somehow, by choosing to substitute Spidey’s erstwhile love interest, Mary Jane Watson, with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) in the new Andrew Garfield version, Webb and company signaled to aficionados that the central romance would eventually have to turn tragic. (Notoriously, in issues 121 and 122 of “The Amazing Spider-Man,” the Green Goblin tosses Gwen off the George Washington Bridge, and Spidey fails to save her on the way down.) And recognizing that the filmmakers planned to tackle such a significant moment in comicbook history sparked the same kind of curiosity and anticipation that awaits any well-cast Shakespeare revival.

As the first “Spider-Man” movie preached a dozen years ago: With great power comes great responsibility. By involving Gwen, Webb was essentially signing up for the all-important task of handling one of the great comicbook deaths in a fresh and respectful way. Of course, the same could be said for the character of Uncle Ben, whose demise served to motivate young Peter’s transformation into a costumed vigilante in the previous movie. And this new film opens with yet another blow, as we witness the noble sacrifice of Peter’s parents, who don’t go down without a fight in what feels like the pre-credits action sequence of a Bond movie.

Speaking of Bond movies, the 007 franchise has dealt with this same problem many times before. Whether dipped in gold or shot in the back, Bond girls have a nasty habit of dying off soon after they’re seduced. Never was that pattern more disappointing than in 1969’s “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” which ended with the assassination of Bond’s bride as the newlyweds drove off to enjoy their honeymoon. (“Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” improved on the formula, following up the tragic death of Vesper Lynd by showing the psychological aftermath of her fate.)

This is where “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” stumbles. The filmmakers go to great lengths to lay the groundwork for Gwen’s death, only to shortchange the consequences. At her high-school graduation, Gwen delivers a valedictory speech that says, “What makes life valuable is that it doesn’t last forever.” And when it comes time to put herself in harm’s way, she makes it clear that she is responsible for her own choices. Refreshingly self-empowered (especially compared with the passive damsel in distress that was Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane in the earlier movies), Gwen is her own person: She breaks up with Peter, she decides to move to London for a once-in-a-lifetime study opportunity and, in an unconventional move, she makes Peter pledge to follow her there.

The screenplay may be clunky at times, but this is all wonderfully anti-patriarchal — a welcome upheaval of the male-driven agenda we get in most superhero movies, and a natural extension of the new “emo” Spidey that Garfield had so endearingly personified in the first movie. So why doesn’t Gwen’s death register more strongly with the audience? And why doesn’t the film deal with the emotional impact this moment has on Peter Parker?

The film shows Peter trying — and failing — to save Gwen’s plummet from the top of a bell tower. As in the comicbook, it is not the fall itself but the whiplash inflicted by Spidey’s web that kills her (though she would’ve died anyway, and his guilt is presumably greater than this technicality). But there’s something oddly anticlimactic about that most important moment, as Peter cradles Gwen’s corpse in his arms. Maybe it’s the music, or the fact that in scenes like this, beloved characters are almost always only “mostly dead” (making the cut to Gwen’s funeral the bigger shock). Or maybe it’s that impassive Spider-Man mask, which really ought to have come off sooner, so we could actually read the expression in Garfield’s “big brown doe eyes.”

All but ignoring the Green Goblin’s fate for the time being, Webb shows Peter looking bereft as he watches video of the valedictory speech he missed, but the film skips over the next five months while Spider-Man hangs up his costume in mourning. Somehow, this feels like the period the film really ought to have explored, instead of wasting time on all those routine montages of Spidey intervening on behalf of bullied science-fair geeks or the yawn-inducingly familiar freak accidents that transform misunderstood Oscorp employees into supervillains. After all, superhero girlfriends don’t die every day, and Gwen Stacy deserves better.

What do you think?

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 46

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. dave says:

    i really enjoyed both amazing spiderman movies and really wish they’d put garfield’s spidey in avengers.

  2. Jeff says:

    The sound of Gwen’s head hitting the concrete floor was (I thought) unmistakable, but the reviewer clearly missed it. That’s why the blood appeared when and where it did. If her neck or back had been broken, I doubt she would have bled at all.

    Gwen died, not because Spider-Man clumsily killed her, but because he was a fraction of a second slow.

  3. Shannon Shaw says:

    Umm.. the criticism about the heroic montage and the villain’s origins in place of the psychological impact of the climactic events has been dealt with in a previous superhero film, and audiences proved via Ang Lee’s HULK.that it is better for box office business if the movie focuses on the montage & origins in stead of the psychological aspects. Not that there isn’t room to touch on the more personal, human aspects, which is needed in order for audiences to connect more closely with the characters; but, big-budget studio superhero movies have naturally evolved into a form of story-telling that simply touches on the more personal parts than delving into them (Nowadayz, sadly, a 5 – 10 minute character-driven scene is a cinematic eternity when audiences are awaiting the next explosion or stunt.)

  4. Peter Kent says:

    I very much disagree with this article too, I think Webb did a wonderful job with her death scene. It gave me the impression that she might live it, it was one of those “totally Hollywood style play dead but then everything is ok in the end scenes”. In fact I’m a long time comic book fan and went in hoping to see Gwen die because it’s such a huge part of who Spider-man is but at the scene found myself believing and even hoping she was ok, then bam the funeral scene. The only thing this article should be about is why did Webb cut the perfect follow up scene of “Peter Parker” beating a laughing Green Goblin almost to death, can you image the audience’s shared and charged emotion during that scene? We would probably be yelling for bloodly murder but he would stop himself and instead turn goblin into the authorities to show us “a better way”. It might even make us feel a little guilty for wanting him to go too far which might again help us share in the guilt he was feeling during the funeral scenes.

  5. Javier says:

    She hit the ground , the web slowed her down, and stretched a bit before she stopped but she still ended up hitting the ground hard enough to cause her death. I don’t understand why critics/reviewers of the movie leave this part out they stick to the whiplash effect, that happened in the comics not the movie!!

  6. Javier says:

    She hit the ground , the web slowed her down, and stretched a bit before she stopped but she still ended up hitting the ground hard enough to cause her death. I don’t understand why critics/reviewers of the movie leave this part out

  7. David says:

    I went into Spiderman 2 cold, not knowing that Gwen was doomed to die. I believe that gave me a different perspective on these scenes than Mr Debruge.

    I didn’t believe Gwen was dead during the boo-hoo scene, and I may have even made a snarky comment to my wife as it played out, so great was my disbelief. As such, the cut to the funeral was a shock. I even wondered for a moment who’s funeral it was, believing it might be a trick (al la “HA, HA! You thought it was Gwen’s funeral because she just had a bad fall – sucker!!”) but it settled quickly that, no, Gwen is dead. For me, largely due to my bubble of feeling that “everything will turn out” popping abruptly, Gwen’s death was very impactful.

    Maudlin around for the next thirty minutes (assuming earlier sequences had been shortened) on how depressed and inert was Parker would have sucked. The only potential payoff from such a trip would have been an even greater payoff for the beginnings of the Rhino battle. Then, we could have felt more strongly about him finally getting off the couch to beat someone up.

    Personally, I like the length of the treatment of Parker’s depression, as it was. I wasn’t too done with the subject to spend time pondering how I felt about the death of a key character as I left the theater.

    The Marvel world will never reach the homicidal levels of character death found in Game of Thrones, but after this Spidieguy installment, it feels far less safe.

  8. This movie has it’s flaws and I loved every minute of it. I did feel Gwen’s death, deeply(I’m also in love with Emma Stone and even when she fake dies, it hurts), but maybe it’s because Spider-Man is my guy. I’ve been reading comics for 35 years and Spidey has always been my fave. I thought it was handled great except for one thing, her death you mentioned in the comics was more tragic because Peter never knew if she was dead when Goblin tossed her off the building or whether her neck snapping was it. And I agree, they shouldn’t skip over those months however, it is obvious Webb is setting up One huge story and once we see it with all it’s parts, I believe some people will change their mind on this one. So I’ll reserve complete judgement til I see it all. Maybe they will deal with those moments. Also, I just read the comment below about Goblin laughing and Peter pummeling him, they ABSOLUTELY should’ve included that in the movie, but again, maybe he is saving that moment for later. Either way, As much as I love the Tobey/Sam Movies, I love these just as much. And the relationship here was much stronger than Tobey/Kirsten one. I may be the most forgiving Comic Nerd on the planet and Lord knows we can be an annoying noisy bunch, but my comic book store guy said it best when people were divided on Man of Steel. He said, “At least we are talking about a Superman movie” You may have limited patience with this genre but I have infinite patience as long as they keep Comic Book movies coming, because trust me, there are literally thousands of awesome stories left to tell.

  9. Chris McCue says:

    According to IMDb, “Things that were cut include a scene where the Goblin (Dane DeHaan) is conscious when Gwen dies and laughs at Peter as he cries over Gwen’s body and a scene where Peter almost beats the Goblin to death after Gwen is killed.” I think including this scene would have given the climax a very different feel, perhaps with a bit more closure, but also would have seemed excessive and made the film too long.

  10. Yes, audiences did not react mournfully to Gwen’s death. People thought spidey would save her or that she was not really dead , as Peter said , You’re ok”. So the funeral was the shock as she was really dead. It seemed Spiderman did not try hard enough to save Gwen and once he inicially settled her on the small platform forgot about her to battle green goblin. So why did goblin always land safely on the side while Gwen needed to surf the gears?
    Disappointed. Gwen did deserve better.

  11. Lucas says:

    I think the film should have ended with Parker hanging up his suit in defeat. The film puts a lot of emphasis on his guilt for the death of Gwen Stacy’s father, what with seeing visions of him everywhere, their break-up, and what not. So when Gwen dies too, Peter is destroyed. He hangs by her grave for five months, with Garfield’s performance implying that the guilt is eating away at him, and he ignores being Spider-Man. This is where it should have ended.

    Peter knows that with great power comes great responsibility, and if he didn’t know that when Gwen’s father died, he knows it now. After something like that wouldn’t he feel like he blew it? Like he wasn’t the hero he thought he was? It would make a lot of sense for him to feel like he had done enough; that he didn’t want anyone else to die on his watch.

  12. I think I’m never, ever going to watch this movie.

  13. Travis says:

    I think the assessment makes is absolutely wrong (to the extent opinions can be “wrong” ). First of all, Andrew Garfield isn’t the “emo Spider-Man”. That would be Tobey Maguire, who monologues about the way he feels when Mary Jane looks at him in the first Spider-Man, engages Doctor Octopus in another flowery conversation about love in Spider-Man 2 and finally goes full dyed-black hair and mascara in Spider-Man 3. By contrast, Andrew Garfield largely employs actual ACTING in his portrayal of Spidey, feeling his emotions instead of reciting them to the sky. When Andrew Garfield’s Spidey is crying and holding Gwen at the end of Amazing Spider-Man 2, there is nothing comedic about it. When Tobey Maguire is holding Harry at the end of Spider-Man 3, I defy anyone not to laugh at what a terrible, emo crier he is.
    And Gwen’s death DOES have real impact in the Amazing Spider-Man 2, by the way, increased even more by her speech, which Peter watches only after she’s died, telling the audience that when things are hardest and they feel most alone, they must BE hope. That was the single most inspiring moment in any Spider-Man movie so far. And it’s made more inspiring by Webb’s direction, which encourages his cast to act like real, living, breathing people instead of cardboardy comic book archetypes who monologue about everything in stilted dialogue which is far more corny than most anything you find in the actual comics.
    Oh, and the idea that the Amazing Spider-Man 2 should have been about Peter Parker spending 5 months as a civilian? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. What a boring movie. And false advertising to boot, unless the film was just called “Peter Parker”. I get that you have limited patience for the genre, but just because you don’t appreciate the wonderment of it all, doesn’t mean you should advocate that it be turned into something far more drab.
    And if you didn’t feel anything when Gwen died, maybe the problem is with you.

  14. Andrew Kole says:

    The problem with SP2 is that AG is 30 years old. The idea that he and ES are graduating from High School is at best – ludicrous. THINK! Why the producers went this route nested of making them college grads – a stretch for AG still – but buyable for ES shows the lack of respect for their audience. The future looks grim form my POV.
    Andrew Kole

    • Travis says:

      Andrew Garfield may BE 30 years old but he doesn’t look it. Lots of guys in the 18-20 range look a lot like him.

  15. holy hell look at the melon on that guy!

  16. raheemdtv says:

    Completely disagree, I was really sad when Gwen died, I think they handled it perfectly and realistically. Normally in films the victim lives long enough to say their last words whereas in this film she didn’t which made it seem more real and sad. I actually don’t know one person that saw the film that said the ending didn’t choke them up so I’m surprised to see this article.

  17. Jimena says:

    I do think they passed Gwen’s death rather quickly, but I loved the scene and I was one of the few that went in blindly. I do hate the incoherence between Peter visiting the tumb in every season, to find out it’s only been 5 months. The most climate-varied 5 months in the history of the world. Now I want to know why Harry hasn’t revealed Peter’s secret.

    • Travis says:

      It’s actually not that unrealistic to see a couple different kinds of weather in a 5 month span. Especially not these days.

  18. gemzombie says:

    I disagree. We don’t need another brood-fest from Peter ala the 3rd original flick. The movie was just long enough, and I think the audience got the level of his hurt. It was just the right amount, and the movie had to end with him back in the web-saddle. Now I wonder if this reboot lasts long enough if we’ll see a Gwen Stacy Clone. That’s part of the original story line, though I feel as if she were brought back for a movie the audience would find it cheesy.

  19. Claire says:

    Oxford is NOT in London. Just sayin’.

  20. Edward Szyler says:

    I have limited patience for critics who say they have limited patience for superhero films.

  21. DERRICK says:

    I think the film had a lot of problems not just with Gwen Dying. To much plot and to many bad guys. And if I had my way Gwen would not have died at all. The romance between her and Peter held the film together for me. The minute she died it killed the whole film for me. But this was true when she died in the comics 40 years ago. Marvel got loads of negative mail when they did it. The way they depicted her in the film was right on point. She was just as smart as peter and not just a stupid party girl like Mary Jane. It brought the comic book down for years when they went down that road and killed her. Now it has done the same thing for the film.

    • Jordan says:

      Not letting Gwen would be totally going against the comic book. People get extremely upset and movies flop when they totally disregard the comic just to cater to people who know nothing about the story i.e Percy Jackson, green lantern, fantastic four,catwoman. I can name plenty more. Even if you think their romance was great it had to end he’s supposed to be with Mary Jane

  22. Sweet_Bamboogirl says:

    I disagree, focusing too much in Gwen’s death afterscene would’ve turn the movie into drama or soap opera. I think this is what marvel has been trying to drill it down to its movie-goers; that no death is more “important” than others’- even if the dead is the girlfriend of the superhero, so it doesn’t have to be given special montage or something like that especially since many deaths happened on that film- when Electro went on rampage for example, though we didn’t see it clearly I bet you many deaths happened then. It may seems cruel, but, the world doesn’t revolve around Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker’s romance, and the movie isn’t about their romance otherwise it’d be drama romance tragedy kind of movie. I think Marvel left the whole Peter breaks down and those five months lurking, into our imagination. And that’s the beauty of it. The movie doesn’t allow us to wallow, dwell, or drag the death scene and its impacts. Rather it allows us to “grieve” in private, in our own time. Maybe it also showed respect that they don’t show Peter’s 5 months of private hell on earth, if this happens in real life we all would have wanted to give him time nd space away from public’s eyes, and there is decency in not being too intrusive about it. SO I hink the movie actually gave Gwen’s death scene and Peter’s grief the highest respect it could be giving.

  23. Jan says:

    I mostly agree, but I think film just should stop on the funeral and rest would be great as the beginning of the next movie. I understand that Webb wanted a more cheerful ending, but it spoils the atmosphere. Anyway, the AMS2 finale is generally bad handled, which makes mourning more moving than Gwen’s death itself.

    • Travis says:

      Aunt May’s not-so-subtle advice to “take one last look and then box it away where it belongs” in regards to Peter’s grief for Gwen was very powerful in how understated it was. I agree that they handled his grieving process just right.

  24. Chris Yu says:

    I think the death was handled well. Though it may have felt that they didn’t give enough actual time to process it, I’m glad they didn’t waste precious screen time on showing Peter going emo. Because we all know how that turned out in the original Spider-man 3. We know he’s affected, we know it got him to stop for a long-ish period of time. I personally don’t like movies that spend too much time on the hero spiraling into the depths of depression, by NOT being a superhero. (I’m looking at you, Dark Knight Rises)

    So overall, I think it was pretty good.

  25. Abby R. says:

    I couldn’t agree more. Heartbreaking that she died, and in such a sudden and anti-cathartic way, then the sudden flash forward to the funeral; then Spiderman sort of getting back to “business as usual” saving people and cracking one-liners. Maybe I’m being girly, but it just left me feeling kind of betrayed. They work up the dynamic development of their relationship the whole movie, and then just over. Just like that. Back to battling the newest enemy – that stupid rhino.

  26. I liked TASM 2 and I thought they did Gwen’s death scene pretty well. Seeing Peter cry over Gwen’s dead body was pretty heartbreaking. I agree with you that the film doesn’t give justice to Gwen Stacy. I thought the plot was pretty lackluster. It felt rushed and stretched out too long at the same time. Stone and Garfield’s chemistry was the stand-out for the whole series so to kill off Stone’s character was pretty ballsy. And unless they dye Stone’s hair red and make her play MJ (improbable; but I still hope they do it), casting MJ is a big undertaking.

  27. I actually liked TASM 2. Yes there were shortcomings and I think Marc Webb’s inexperience as a director of big, high-expectation productions showed in this movie but he’s still a talented director with a knack of injecting some heart and soul into characters. The trouble with TASM 2 is that it needed to fulfill the obligation of at least 2 big action sequences and it seemed to conflict with the general tone of the story. The Electro scenes were visually spectacular but it felt like Webb wanted to rush through those to get to Gwen Stacy’s death. I thought her death was a haunting scene and it was the scene that stuck with me walking out of the theater but I thought by focusing on the doomed relationship, the villains got slighted and Harry Osborne was so underdeveloped. The worst was how the movie handled the transformation into Goblin. Injecting yourself with green venom and then instantly going haywire and then crawling to the glider and suit seemed too convenient. Chris Cooper’s talent was also wasted. He had one scene and then died. In all honesty, I felt if they were going to stick with Gwen’s death in TASM 2, skip Electro altogether, spend time developing Green Goblin and maybe in subsequent movies introduce the Rhino and Electro villains. TASM 2 had a few bright spots but it was kind of a mess when considered as a whole.

  28. Bill says:

    I think there’s a misunderstanding that most of the viewers of these films are comic book fans.

    I knew Stacy’s death was likely coming after Googling her character after the first film, but I still didn’t think Hollywood would have the guts to kill a romance like that in a franchise film.

    Hollywood has saved many a character that died in the source material (most famously Hooper in “Jaws”) so it’s surprising they did it here.

  29. Daniel says:

    Gwen Stacy needed to be played by a more likeable actress. Then, even Peter’s reaction may have been more intense.

    • Jimena says:

      Are you kidding? Who’s more likeable than Emma Stone? She’s amazing! I imagine if you met her, you’d be smitten all of a sudden.

    • Are you serious? Emma Stone is the one actress who’s been consistently praised in the TASM series and her chemistry with Garfield has been one of the films’ strong points because they are boyfriend/girlfriend in real life.

  30. DougW says:

    The consensus is that the best thing about the two “Amazing” movies has been the chemistry between Andrew and Emma. Now the filmmakers don’t have that moving on, unless Emma dyes her hair red and plays Mary Jane (not a bad idea).

  31. DougW says:

    Peter has lost his parents, his Uncle, and his first love. Watch your six, Aunt May.

  32. Luis says:

    I consider myself an outsider to comic books, I haven’t read a page of any of them but I’m an aficionado to their film counterparts and even though I knew (hello and thanks Wikipedia) Gwen was gonna die, I thought the scene was flawless… Yes, we don’t get to see Peter’s reaction first hand, but I think in the shock of the moment his first reaction wasn’t that of taking his mask right away… I think of the movie as romantic comedy with a 200 million budget and great action sequences… It’s pretty messy but not as messy as Raimi’s SM3…

  33. therealeverton says:

    The film was very dull and yes, cutting some of that other garbage to focus on the aftermath of Gwen’s death, for Peter and her family would have been much more interesting.

    Neve thought I’d be bored by Spider-Man, but after 30 or do years I finally have been. Same mistakes as the third Raimi film, where it was clear the merchandise magnet Venom was forced into a story planned out over 2 films that never intended venom to be there. Here the excellent DeHaan was just wasted, dropped into a story that had no discs for him. We had no time to care about him , or accept his desperation. Same fir poor old Jamie Foxx. Skip the middle lets go straight to crazy super nut. The Times Square confrontation was excellent though. Man of Steel take note. Spider-Man is forced to take on a powerful for surrounded by civilians; yet risks his life to protect them, not throw Electro into them.

  34. Bhavani Rao says:

    Though I knew Gwen was going to die(it’s one of the larger milestones in Peter Parker/Spiderman journey) , and they did tip their hand more than once through the movie – I did appreciate that they kept SOME of the orginal arc of HOW she died and what it did to him. I hope they build on that in the 3rd installation. Peter is marked by Death – akin to how Bruce Wayne marked for vengence, and Clark is identified very much for hope in some way.

    All the Deaths in Peters life move him into this new space of life. He both grows and shuts off each time and it’s was great reading it as a kid growing up. Now to see how the two trilogies intrerput the story line has been interesting to watch.

    Over all, I liked it. I did love some of the visuals. It felt like the comic pages come alive! What can I say? Even after working in Entertainment for so many years, I still watch movies like a I am 8 year old kid…

  35. tONY says:

    BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…critics know nothing. A bunch of hot air…

    • solitaire86 says:

      I thought they managed the whole Gwen arc perfectly. I knew that in the original source material she dies but the film kept me guessing as to weather they would do the same. when she was stuck in traffic near the water, then when they were kissing on top of the bridge and then when fighting Electro. It seemed like they had made it through safely. Would they have the stones to kill off such a beloved and profitable actress in a franchise that they can use sell merchandise to children? And then it happened, and it was haunting. I could feel Peter’s pain and it is a huge credit to the film makers for passing that feeling through. It was a great film with a lot of fun and quips with great action and a fantastic romance and a gut punch of a death. they way they handed the aftermath was perfect too. While ending it immediately after was one option it would have left too heavy a feeling for the type of movie it is. The film didn’t need to show detail of Peters depression just the few simple tombstone shots to convey how long and how much it grieved him. Having that final scene where he comes to the rescue of ‘the science fair geek’ that was established prior shows that he realizes the responsibility he has but in no way shows that he is over the death of Gwen. In fact i think that the after effects will have a major bearing on the next film and will probably feature several flashbacks to Gwen as Peter looks to move forward.

  36. Rami says:

    Nice article and it’s very true, how it was handled was lackluster. Look to The Dark Knight for a much better example of the handling of the death of a superhero love interest. While I overall enjoyed the film quite a bit, the ending just fell flat

    • Travis says:

      Oh, god. Not every article about a comic book movie is an excuse to mention the Dark Knight. Yes, it was a great film. But it’s NOT a perfect example of how to handle the death of a superhero love interest because Maggie Gyllenhaal was the worst part of the film and, to me, it came off rather corny.When Katie Holmes does a better job than you in a role, something is wrong.

More Film News from Variety