The Amazing Spider-Man Are they going to force the romance plot down our throats...again?

[Vid Electricz]

I just want the romance to be well-written and convincing. I'm very interested in the love interests in Spider-Man. MJ, Gwen - and if it's done well in this film, and let's say in the next film Gwen is killed, I'd the happiest moviegoer.

I saw Emma Stone in Easy A; didn't care so much for the film itself but I admired her performance. Andrew Garfield was fantastic in The Social Network, no one can deny that. Increasingly looking forward to screen chemistry between these two. Oh, and hey, why all the comparisons to Twilight? If the parts are being well acted, it's already worlds apart from that franchise.

I absolutely agree. If these characters are really well developed and we grow to really care about them, then it'll be utterly heartbreaking if/when Gwen dies.

There are no comparisons to the Twilight franchise here. Given the talent involved and the source material they're going from- This will be head-over-heels superior. No question in my mind.

 

[abnerstacy]

Woo Hoo. Let the testosterone-fest continue.

Like the guy said before, have any of you ever actually had a real, interpersonal relationship with a female? 'cause it sounds like everything you're saying here is a regurgitation of every bad over the top, insecure male, misogynist cliche from the past 60 years. I'm not saying that I thought MJ was written particularly well, but most of the these posts smack of fanboy ignorance and naivete. Go figure.

While I agree there's a certain air of misogyny to some [re: a minority] of the posts, there are points being made about the Dunst Mary Jane, albeit sometimes inadvertently that are nonetheless valid. It seems as though you're ignoring the main focus of the discussion, which truly is about what many consider, myself included, a poorly developed character and the adverse effect it had on the trilogy as a whole.

Now that we are all aware of your actually quite understandable opinion on the elements of misogyny in fanboy culture, let's get to the nitty gritty of the thing: Do you feel that Mary Jane was represented by Kirsten Dunst in the Spider-Man trilogy well? If so why? If not, why not? Etc.

I personally think how she was portrayed was one of the many problems that plagued these movies from the get-go and don't find her to be a remotely entertaining, three dimensional or even sympathetic character at all. And yes, it's true, as many have said here and throughout Spidey's long history, MJ as a character in general definitely has a certain deficit in real, emotionally mature plot points or character sensibilities. She for the most part has been represented as the supportive bombshell 'wifey'. Which is ****ing boring. And also ironic, considering Gerry Conway killed off Gwen Stacy in the first place because he thought she was "sweet, beautiful, and boring" compared to "redheaded, sassy and secretly pained" Mary Jane.

Which brings us back to Dunst's portrayal, who from what I saw, only presented one of three things that made Conway interested in writing MJ over Gwen in the first place: She had red hair.

She certainly wasn't 'secretly pained', excepting the brief aside of her silhouette parents yelling as she took out the garbage. In fact, she was more often than not very openly pained. By general, standard rejection. Rejection from certain acting roles, rejection from Peter, etc. Indeed, I don't think it's unfair to say that she was shown in a very needy light throughout the series. (People noticing that on this board does not make them misogynistic, though the fact that she was portrayed that way in the film could be more comfortably associated with that term.)

Also, she was certainly not 'sassy'. Or vivacious. Or fiery. She was mostly quite watery and milquetoast.

To say that she was a **** on the other hand is patently absurd. She was portrayed properly (in this one sense only) as a young girl trying to figure out her broader romantic emotions. Not uncommon, nor inappropriate.

Though, I will agree, many of her actions would certainly have given me very little reason to emotionally trust, much lessly endless fawn over her.

 

[NinjaCarm]

While I agree there's a certain air of misogyny to some [re: a minority] of the posts, there are points being made about the Dunst Mary Jane, albeit sometimes inadvertently that are nonetheless valid. It seems as though you're ignoring the main focus of the discussion, which truly is about what many consider, myself included, a poorly developed character and the adverse effect it had on the trilogy as a whole.

Now that we are all aware of your actually quite understandable opinion on the elements of misogyny in fanboy culture, let's get to the nitty gritty of the thing: Do you feel that Mary Jane was represented by Kirsten Dunst in the Spider-Man trilogy well? If so why? If not, why not? Etc.

I personally think how she was portrayed was one of the many problems that plagued these movies from the get-go and don't find her to be a remotely entertaining, three dimensional or even sympathetic character at all. And yes, it's true, as many have said here and throughout Spidey's long history, MJ as a character in general definitely has a certain deficit in real, emotionally mature plot points or character sensibilities. She for the most part has been represented as the supportive bombshell 'wifey'. Which is ****ing boring. And also ironic, considering Gerry Conway killed off Gwen Stacy in the first place because he thought she was "sweet, beautiful, and boring" compared to "redheaded, sassy and secretly pained" Mary Jane.

Which brings us back to Dunst's portrayal, who from what I saw, only presented one of three things that made Conway interested in writing MJ over Gwen in the first place: She had red hair.

She certainly wasn't 'secretly pained', excepting the brief aside of her silhouette parents yelling as she took out the garbage. In fact, she was more often than not very openly pained. By general, standard rejection. Rejection from certain acting roles, rejection from Peter, etc. Indeed, I don't think it's unfair to say that she was shown in a very needy light throughout the series. (People noticing that on this board does not make them misogynistic, though the fact that she was portrayed that way in the film could be more comfortably associated with that term.)

Also, she was certainly not 'sassy'. Or vivacious. Or fiery. She was mostly quite watery and milquetoast.

To say that she was a **** on the other hand is patently absurd. She was portrayed properly (in this one sense only) as a young girl trying to figure out her broader romantic emotions. Not uncommon, nor inappropriate.

Though, I will agree, many of her actions would certainly have given me very little reason to emotionally trust, much less endless fawn over her.

...aka she sucked.

 

[abnerstacy]

...aka she sucked.

Yeah... Pretty much.

 

[NinjaCarm]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, that I've got not problem with...what I am getting at is the ignorant, sexist and uninformed way it's being voiced. I'm not getting all feministy here, but when you blatantly ignore plot points (that you may or may not have cared for-that part is irrelevant) and lazily use words like "c*cktease", etc...to describe a character, when that clearly wasn't the case if you followed the story at all. This type of macho-bravura posturing has become widely accepted and I have absolutely no problem calling someone out on it.

So the problem isn't what they're saying, but rather how they're saying it.


As I've said before, if Webb's first film 500 days of summer is any indication of how Peter and Gwen will interact in this new film, then I will be absolutely happy. I'm not talking gritty realism here, but more drama and less melodrama.

BINGO! That's what the whole trilogy felt like! One big melodramatic chunk of cheese!

To top it off with the extreme focus on a less than ideal Mary Jane, was the kicker!

I think that's what people want to say.

 

[WarriorDreamer]

Wow I think that Vid Electricz is being a bit too unnecessarily harsh on these so called 'fanboys.' Which leads me to say I hate fanboy being used as an insult alot of the time.

It's like on SHH people accuse other people of being fanboys as a way of saying they're pathetic nerdy losers who've never touched a girl in their life.

I think a 'fanboy' can be a good thing, it's good to have a strong enthusiasm to something, whatever that may be. It doesn't however, shed light on anything about them other than the fact they're a fan of whatever it is.

I wouldn't say people are being sexist saying they didn't like her character or whatever, that's what they got from her character, whatever.

I wouldn't go as far as calling her a ****. We're remembering the men she was with were over the course of several years. It's not like she was with 5 different men in the course of a few months.

I agree that she was a very needy and often weak character. I think that shows the most in the 3rd film. It's not being sexist to say that, it's just an opinion.

Some people didn't like her, fine. No need to jump down people's throats.

 

[kedrell]

I don't know why you're wasting your time replying to me either, 'cause you obviously didn't even read what I wrote...and if you did read it,then you really didn't understand it. Way to go, homie. Waste of time indeed. You obviously understand things on a very superficial level. Stick to browsing images of "your dream": photoshopped, big-boobed, blondes. LOL.

No but I understand BS arguement tactics when I see them and using an avatar as a reason that another's arguement as invalid is right up there.

I challenge you to name me what you consider a "strong" or "well written" female character.

I think this could be an interesting dialogue.

Are we talking superhero films or films in general? And I never said I required a well written or strong female character. Things lacking in the script can sometimes still be overcome by a good performance. Sometimes it can be hard to tell if a likeable character is more due to good writing, a good performance or both so when I see one I like I generally don't analyze too much. I just am grateful and enjoy what I got. It's only when I get crap that I start analyzing to see where it went wrong.

If I was getting at anything it was my disdain for characters(in this instance female...MJ) that are horribly written and backed up by a bad or mediocre performance(or direction) which in this case was largely due to Dunst simply being miscast rather than her actually being a bad actress, IMO. When a character is miscast I don't blame the actor, I blame the one who hired them.

 

[Vid Electricz]

While I agree there's a certain air of misogyny to some [re: a minority] of the posts, there are points being made about the Dunst Mary Jane, albeit sometimes inadvertently that are nonetheless valid. It seems as though you're ignoring the main focus of the discussion, which truly is about what many consider, myself included, a poorly developed character and the adverse effect it had on the trilogy as a whole.

Now that we are all aware of your actually quite understandable opinion on the elements of misogyny in fanboy culture, let's get to the nitty gritty of the thing: Do you feel that Mary Jane was represented by Kirsten Dunst in the Spider-Man trilogy well? If so why? If not, why not? Etc.

I personally think how she was portrayed was one of the many problems that plagued these movies from the get-go and don't find her to be a remotely entertaining, three dimensional or even sympathetic character at all. And yes, it's true, as many have said here and throughout Spidey's long history, MJ as a character in general definitely has a certain deficit in real, emotionally mature plot points or character sensibilities. She for the most part has been represented as the supportive bombshell 'wifey'. Which is ****ing boring. And also ironic, considering Gerry Conway killed off Gwen Stacy in the first place because he thought she was "sweet, beautiful, and boring" compared to "redheaded, sassy and secretly pained" Mary Jane.

Which brings us back to Dunst's portrayal, who from what I saw, only presented one of three things that made Conway interested in writing MJ over Gwen in the first place: She had red hair.

She certainly wasn't 'secretly pained', excepting the brief aside of her silhouette parents yelling as she took out the garbage. In fact, she was more often than not very openly pained. By general, standard rejection. Rejection from certain acting roles, rejection from Peter, etc. Indeed, I don't think it's unfair to say that she was shown in a very needy light throughout the series. (People noticing that on this board does not make them misogynistic, though the fact that she was portrayed that way in the film could be more comfortably associated with that term.)

Also, she was certainly not 'sassy'. Or vivacious. Or fiery. She was mostly quite watery and milquetoast.

To say that she was a **** on the other hand is patently absurd. She was portrayed properly (in this one sense only) as a young girl trying to figure out her broader romantic emotions. Not uncommon, nor inappropriate.

Though, I will agree, many of her actions would certainly have given me very little reason to emotionally trust, much lessly endless fawn over her.

Thanks for the articulate and thoughtful response.

I did indeed write that I don't think the character was handled particularly well...As a matter of fact, if I'm going to be cut-throat honest, I didn't care for how many of the characters were portrayed in these films...

But-I have a couple ways of analyzing books/films/etc...

I generally, make an exception for what is to be expected from characters in superhero films. And it's always the same. These characters are generally two-dimensional and watery. I don't go into these films expecting art-house character deconstruction and what not. There are other films to fulfill those areas. These films are made to appeal to a wide, wide audience (usually the lowest common denominator). There is generally little subtlety and everything is taken very much on a superficial level...I love film analysis and such, and if I'm going to enjoy a comic book film at all, I need to alter what my expectations are for how characters will behave, etc... Whenever you go into a film, it's important that you adjust your expectations and judge accordingly. Do you know what I mean? I'm not saying you lower your standards, but you say to yourself: "what was the goal the director was trying to achieve here?" and then " Did he/she achieve it?".

In the case of the characters in the Spider-Man films, I found that there were moments of brilliance, reflecting very well the early Ditko comics intermixed with insanely melodramatic situations that would NEVER arise in real life. Regardless of the fact that it's fantasy, the human interaction should feel REAL- especially in Spider-Man. Heck, it's the most important part of the character.

I've gone over in detail before how the characters in the comics were more or less two dimensional, walking-talking, attractive, card-board cut-outs that communicated in sassy one-liners and pop culture references. The stories were (and still are, I'd argue) written for children and were pure cheese (I'm excluding Amazing 1-38: the Ditko stories, which were amazing).

That said. I took the Raimi films for exactly what they were- well made block-buster fluff (a step above most blockbuster fluff). It wasn't exactly what I wanted, but I wasn't going to lose sleep over it. I could appreciate it for what it was. I never got upset, because even though the movie didn't live up to exactly what I wanted, I could always go back and read the comics whenever I wanted.

I know that the character of Spider-Man and his supporting cast have so much potential that hasn't been explored and I'm really hoping that Mr.Webb delivers what I know can be a successful translation of the web-slinger to the big screen.

*Sigh* I went on a total rant. I'm sure I'll probably edit this later, but it's too late now and I'm too tired. Take care.

 

[serendipity]

I absolutely agree. If these characters are really well developed and we grow to really care about them, then it'll be utterly heartbreaking if/when Gwen dies.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say, haha - I said I'd be "happy" if Gwen is killed, but this is definitely what I was getting at. Nothing better than that tragedy. I hope that is the route the next film takes, and follows suit with the rest of the "Death of Gwen Stacy" storyline, where Mary Jane attempts to comfort the grieving Peter Parker at the end.

 

[Mary Jane Watson]

It is pretty interesting that Spider man movie maker's job should be realllllllly easy b/c thats all they can do is just follow comic story. Simple and clean. Rather than make up some BS.
So why cant Sam or Sony can just borrow some free comics from Marvel and find out what MJ is all about. Done.

 

[chaseter]

BINGO! That's what the whole trilogy felt like! One big melodramatic chunk of cheese!

To top it off with the extreme focus on a less than ideal Mary Jane, was the kicker!

I think that's what people want to say.

But that's the problem...the ideal Mary Jane. I have listed what she was in the original comics so what is the ideal Mary Jane? Other than being perky and confident, the previous MJ fulfilled all the roles the original Mary Jane was written for. Kirsten's MJ just lacked spunk and confidence but other than that, she was MJ...just not everyone's ideal MJ. She was needy in the comics as well. She was a very selfish and needy girl. But, the only things we seem to remember are her looks, spunk, and confidence. We forget about the utterly ****ty things she did to Peter and Harry.

The ideal Mary Jane is also the reason there are so many differing responses. We all have different views of women and that reflects the character that was written as the girl we all wish we could have and Peter is the guy we all wish we could be. That is why we have seen so many different versions of Peter and MJ over the years. I guess we know Stan was after the popular party girl when he was in school.

I agree about there being too much melodrama...that is absolutely correct.

 

[Mary Jane Watson]

But that's the problem...the ideal Mary Jane. I have listed what she was in the original comics so what is the ideal Mary Jane? Other than being perky and confident, the previous MJ fulfilled all the roles the original Mary Jane was written for. Kirsten's MJ just lacked spunk and confidence but other than that, she was MJ...just not everyone's ideal MJ. She was needy in the comics as well. She was a very selfish and needy girl. But, the only things we seem to remember are her looks, spunk, and confidence. We forget about the utterly ****ty things she did to Peter and Harry.

The ideal Mary Jane is also the reason there are so many differing responses. We all have different views of women and that reflects the character that was written as the girl we all wish we could have and Peter is the guy we all wish we could be. That is why we have seen so many different versions of Peter and MJ over the years. I guess we know Stan was after the popular party girl when he was in school.

I agree about there being too much melodrama...that is absolutely correct.

^^Hell ya.

But still I feel like...MJ does have good and bad day in comic for sure. Kristen was just overly dramatic in JUST 3 movies. THATS just too much. too much space. Past three movies should be all about Spidey not MJ. It is will wayy better if in all 3 movies should had least 1 or 2 problem point with MJ and Peter. Not like 5 or 6. Thats wrong. In all 3 movies- had only 4 and half hours.
I think Sony NEEDS to make a good rep name for SM. Show GA what is SM is all about. Thats SM what we love and grew with him.
( grammar? sorry, I am just really tried lol)

 

[WeasleyIsRKing]

To sum up...MJ in the previous films was not written well or fleshed out as a character that made you care about her as a person. I remember liking the first Spiderman when it first came out, but I was thinking to myself...Why is Peter so enamored with MJ? They never really gave you a real reason. He just was. Always had a problem with that.

I hope they flesh out Gwen Stacy this time around and give Emma some juicy scenes with Andrew that clearly show why this guy would want to be with her. Give their relationship substance instead of just being superficial surface level romance like the previous movies.