cyberghostface: (Right One)
[personal profile] cyberghostface posting in [community profile] scans_daily

I posted a panel from this story the other day, and it inspired an...interesting discussion. Here's the context behind it. It comes from Amazing Spider-Man #365. Tom DeFalco plotted it, Stan Lee wrote the script and John Romita Sr. illustrated it.

Mary Jane thinks about the day Captain Stacy died, in which during a fight between Doctor Octopus and Spider-Man, a chimney fell over and Stacy was crushed saving a little boy from being hit.

re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-17 08:17 pm (UTC)
hohaiyee: Tea that's yellow like butter within its cup, upon a maroon hued table, strewn with hot pink flowers shaped like stars (Default)
From: [personal profile] hohaiyee
Hey, "No one stays dead except Bucky, [DC Comics'] Jason Todd and [Spider-Man's] Uncle Ben", and Jason and Bucky is already back!!!

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-17 08:18 pm (UTC)
punishermax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] punishermax
Gwen is on the level of Uncle Ben though. As much as I hate to say it, she can't be revived because she represents such a pivotal moment in Peter's life.

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-17 11:07 pm (UTC)
starwolf_oakley: (Default)
From: [personal profile] starwolf_oakley
Which is why it aggravates me (and other fans) that Norman Osborn was brought back. Even if Spider-Man didn't kill him, he should have been punished in some way for killing Gwen. (Or at least intending for her to die.) Despite what Bendis and Quesada think, Norman isn't interesting enough to have Joker/Lex Luthor Immunity for a year and a half.

Even the reasons for bringing back Norman and making him the mastermind behind the Clone Saga (Norman wanted to punish Peter for Harry's death) don't make sense with Dan Slott's retcon/reveal that Norman knew Harry was alive all the time.

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-17 11:38 pm (UTC)
box_in_the_box: (Default)
From: [personal profile] box_in_the_box
If sales on the title don't stop going down, I suspect you might see Gwen resurrected, if only a) out of desperation and b) because Quesada wanted her back in OMD, and Quesada, like George Lucas, always eventually manages to override his own writers.

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-18 05:57 am (UTC)
jaybee3: Nguyen Lil Cass (Default)
From: [personal profile] jaybee3
And when Gwen is resurrected they'll tie her to Norman again, right?Because Queseda thinks Norm's somehow commanding and attractive or something. Maybe she'll feel torn because she's still attracted to him and have another so-called "moment of weakness"...

You know I really wanted that to come out sarcastic and everything. But in retrospect I wouldn't put it beyond Marvel to have it happen after all. Everything seems to revolve around Normy these days.

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-17 08:22 pm (UTC)
unicornicopia: (Marvel ♪ Gwen)
From: [personal profile] unicornicopia
Hah, I really don't think I'd want a resurrected Gwen unless she ran far far away from the current Spideybooks :/ I mean, the retcon of her having Norman Osborne's mutant babies really damaged her character and it would take a MAGNIFICENTLY talented writer to rectify it.

As is, I think I'd prefer just to see her in her own alternative universe where certain things can be ignored.

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-17 09:00 pm (UTC)
galateus: (AFO Baby)
From: [personal profile] galateus
Like nerdy!Gwen in the Spectacular cartoon?

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-17 11:01 pm (UTC)
starwolf_oakley: (Default)
From: [personal profile] starwolf_oakley
That Gwen is more like Deb Whitman, IMHO.

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-18 01:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
That Gwen makes sense as what Gwen was like before she became a beauty queen. There's the interest in science, "the look" which fits in with Gwen having a temper and being a bit passive-agressive and, like in the sixties, she's the one who always worries about her friends.

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-18 12:31 am (UTC)
yaseen101: (Default)
From: [personal profile] yaseen101
it would take a MAGNIFICENTLY talented writer to rectify it.

As a would-be, aspiring writer, I feel challenged.

Re: AU Gwen

Date: 2010-01-18 01:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Anyone could retcon it. They looked exactly like Gwen and Peter, which means they had no genetic input from Norman Osborn, the supposed father, and there is genetic input from Peter, who never had sex with Gwen. Either someone was really sloppy in planning the story and forgot about the resemblance when they decided that Peter wouldn't be the father, or they were putting down the groundwork for a future story where it would be revealed that they were actually clones that Osborn created to mess with Peter.


scans_daily: (Default)
Scans Daily


Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, [community profile] scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, [community profile] scans_daily is probably not for you.

Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.

October 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags