Random Thought About Gwen Stacy

12388991876?profile=RESIZE_400x12388992065?profile=RESIZE_400x

 

I'm sure that I'm not the first person that has thought of this, but it just occurred to me that the  "Earth-616" version of Gwen Stacy  first appeared in a comic cover-dated December 1965, and was "killed" in a comic cover-dated June 1973, whereas the "Earth-65"  version of Gwen first appeared in a comc cover-dated September 2014, and is still active as of February 2024.

So, from a certain pount of view - and discounting clones, flashbacks, and other alternate versions - Gwen-65 has been "alive" in the Marvel Universe longer than Gwen-616 was.

 

 

 

 

You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!

Join Captain Comics

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • D9trF4lXsAEsQ3S.jpg

  • From Marvels #4 (April 1994)

    12389114673?profile=RESIZE_710x

    • That exact page is when I first fell in love with Gwen Stacy. 

    • I think a lot of us did. Too bad they didn't know how to handle her before they killed her,

      I just realized that on March 22 of this year it will be exactly 30 years since this issue went on sale.

    • Her beauty... her innocence...

      Try and tell me that girl had an affair with Norman Osborn and bore his children, just try.

    • Hiring super-star writers is fine, except editors need to sit on them. "Play with our toys, but don't break them."

  • GWENDOLYN

  • Hiring super-star writers is fine, except editors need to sit on them.

    I'm sure most people here know this, but when J. Michael Straczynski wrote "Sins Past," his idea was that Gwen had sex with Peter Parker, and her twins rapidly aged and had super-powers thanks to his irradiated blood. (Fortunately, Gwen went to London for an unspecified time in the original timeline, I think around Amazing Spider-Man #95, when she could conceivably have had the kids secretly if you squint just right. I didn't look it up, so it may be a different issue.) When Marvel editorial read the script to "Sins Past," they freaked out, because they wanted to keep Peter Parker a virgin. So they made Straczynski change the father to Norman Osborn, and IIRC, JMS took his name off the story.

    Now, that doesn't let him off the hook. It's nonsense that Peter Parker is a virgin (at least after that scene where MJ "comforts" him and closes the door), but Gwen certainly could have been, and should have been, as her death is just that much more poignant if she was. Giving her children and not telling Parker about it, them growing up evil, etc., besmirches the innocence Jeff talks about, which is about the only real character trait she had. It's just a bad idea all around.

    But switching it to Osborn? That's just lunacy! And really ick.

    Which brings me to this: How can Marvel editorial sit on superstar writers when they have boneheaded ideas themselves? It's Marvel editorial that wants to keep Peter Parker eternally a virgin (who doesn't drink, smoke, swear, etc.) despite the character being in his late 20s (and having obviously had sex with MJ, and alcohol on panel, before they decided in the Quesada era to make him a virgin again, to girls and to alcohol). I understand they want to keep the character safe for kids, but a man in his late 20s who has sampled so little of life ... well, it makes you wonder if he's on the scale or something.

    And it was Marvel editorial that decided to un-do Peter's marriage to MJ, which erased 20 years of comics. Which are in my longboxes. And no longer "count." 

    And it was Marvel editorial that signed off on Gwen dying in the first place, in order to keep Peter Parker single.

    These are all stupid ideas, born from stupid policies. As the saying went in the '60s, "DC is run by corporate stiffs, but Marvel is run by drunk monkeys." (Or something like that.)

    Sorry for the rant. Obviously, I still care about Spider-Man. But all these decisions have turned me off to the current version of the character, and that still stings.

    • (Fortunately, Gwen went to London for an unspecified time in the original timeline, I think around Amazing Spider-Man #95, when she could conceivably have had the kids secretly if you squint just right. I didn't look it up, so it may be a different issue.)

      No, you've got the time-frame exactly right but, if you read those issues circa #95 (which I did back when "Sins Past" was a thing), there's exactly no time for Gwen to have had a baby regardless of how much squinting is involved. 

    • I would have rathered that Osborn found some of Gwen's cells that the Jackal had and cloned her "children" combining hers and his DNA.

This reply was deleted.