--- On Sun 05/05, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > > > > s > > > > > > p > > > > > > o > > > > > > i > > > > > > l > > > > > > e > > > > > > r > > > > > > > > > > > > s > > > > > > p > > > > > > a > > > > > > c > > > > > > e > >3. If they had really played out the Gwen Stacy storyline - where >Peter _did_ have to make a choice, and lost his girlfriend because >of it, that would have been amazing. As it is, the dropping two >things at once was, first, _way_ too reminiscent of Batman Forever >and, second, obviated the moral dilemma that Peter was facing, and >that could have made it a really good movie, instead of just an >entertaining one. > That's a fair point, Gautam. My feeling is that it was strictly a business decision. You don't sign someone with the popularity of Kirsten Dunst and make her Gwen, only to kill her in the first movie, or make her MJ and give her only a cameo in the first movie.
Also, in the original story in Amazing Spider-Man #121, Peter *did* try to save Gwen. He just failed. It's not the same thing as what you are talking about. I don't remember the exact details of Gwen's death, but I can pull the issue out, review them, and post them to the list if you like. Jim Me: I would be very interested, but please don't go to any great trouble on my behalf. I agree with you - they couldn't possibly have killed Kirsten Dunst. And she was a good MJ, although there wasn't much to do with the part. I would have suggested casting some blonde unknown as Gwen Stacy and keeping Dunst as MJ - let there be two rivals for Peter's affections, I guess. The movie was fairly fast paced and two hours long on the dot, so they did have some time to work with. And the memories of Batman Forever really did bother me... Gautam
