Should they have really killed off Gwen Stacy? I mean, let's take a look at the various reasons they could have had for doing so. First, to stay true to the comics, but let's be honest. When have they ever been concerned with that? I doubt that is their reason, and really. I don't think they should stay completely true to the comics. So long as they stay true to the spirit of the character and/or don't disrespect the source material (*cough*Mandarin*cough*), some change can be good. I don't really know what Electro was/is like in the comics, but I'm going to guess that he's completely different than what he was like in the movie. Personally, I really liked the character in the movie. He was one of my favorite parts. But I digress. Another reason is that they wanted to make way for Mary Jane. But to completely kill off a character they spent all that time developing just to make way for a more popular character? Seems disrespectful to the first character. It would have been better if Gwen and Peter had just broken up, and we left it at that. Another reason is for shock value. And that's just cheap (*cough*Mandarin*cough*). The last reason I can personally think of, and this is the one I find most likely, is to return to the status quo. In the movie, Peter had developed a lot as a character. He had finally gotten over his fear of putting his loved ones in harm's way just by being with them, and he decided to move with Gwen to Europe. Now, we can't have that, can we? So they killed her off. Now Peter's going to be reluctant to let anyone in his life again, once Mary Jane is in the picture (you know she's coming), and he's not moving out of New York. Back to square one. Now we get to watch the same thing over again. So all in all, I don't think they should have killed Gwen off. If they wanted her out of the picture, I think they should have just broken the two up. Also, this is coming from someone who is not at all that interested in romance in movies. I just love stories, and that part of the story just bugs me.

i think they should have as 1. it differentiates from the raimi trilogy and 2. it lets peter and spider-man develop more

It was already quite different form the Raimi trilogy, and as I said, it doesn't really develop him more. It just gets them back to the status quo.

When I was watching at the cinema theater I was like: "NOO SHE CAN'T DIE! But she has to... NO PLEASE... but..."

It's the most important thing that happened in Spider-Man's history. This event made Spidey be what we know today. It was necessary. ):

Honestly I think it's probably better that they did do it. This actually raises the stakes in the next movie if MJ's in danger in the next one.

And the whole Andrew/Emma dynamic was the best part of ASM1 and 2, given that they are a real life couple. I'm not sure if the sequels will hold up, making me believe that Gwen should have remained alive for the series.

..Its THE classic Spiderman story, so yes they had to do it and brilliantly well done it was too. One of THE most poignant moments in any superhero film ever.

Why you guys call him amazing spider-man ? I don't see anything amazing... in both movies he is at some way guilty for someone death. And in my eyes they make him a ''man''who don't do what he promise (please someone, if understand what i mean, correct me ).

Gwen's father ask Peter that leave Gwen out hes life, because he know that she can get hurt... What Peter don't do ! After this, i don't see Peter as a man... specially like amazing being !

They shouldn't have done it.

Yep, glad they did it.

@valdemocnij: He is a flawed person, just like everyone else. Peter is supposed to be flawed, even in the comics. Hopefully who ever replaces Gwen will be just as good.