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

[Vid Electricz]

You didn't understood Oscorp's post at all. What you say here makes no sense.

Tell me what kind of normal person is a total b***h like the MJ character from Raimi's movies who jumps from one guy to the other? What kind of normal person never knows what she really wants, but always whines? And what kind of normal person becomes jealous when their loved one gets cheered and applaused like she did in Spider-Man 3?

No, we don't want the damn comic version to be transfered in the movie and be exactly, but have the movie MJ character somewhat similar to the comic version, since after all, that's what the movie character is based on! Let her be supportive to Peter and not whine all the damn time.

It's so funny, because any male character acting in the same way as the MJ character would not be questioned or derided in any of the sexist ways the little nerds here are doing. Then again, all the fanboys around here all want the women in these movies to be "hot" and "supportive of the hero". Sexist fanboy double standards. Little nerds railing about who's a **** or b*tch because they're not intelligent enough to articulate their thoughts or come to their own conclusions. Pathetic.

A bit of info: Comic book characters (especially superhero comics) are generally flat, boring, completely uninteresting and non-captivating. The reason these characters are changed so much (for the purpose of adding "personality"... which is questionable, because they're usually only a little less shallow than their comic book counterpart.) is because the comic book version is a total cardboard cut-out and they need the audience to be interested in and invest their time and emotion in them. I'm not saying it's been gone about correctly in the past, but rather, I'm giving the reason why it's done.

 

[The Morningstar]

People have a problem with the way MJ was written because... she isn't appealing. On any level. What the **** does Peter Parker see in this girl? Seriously?

You don't need to make a character a prick, whether it's a guy or a girl, to be three dimensional. That's just lazy writing.

 

[Vid Electricz]

People have a problem with the way MJ was written because... she isn't appealing. On any level. What the **** does Peter Parker see in this girl? Seriously?

You don't need to make a character a prick, whether it's a guy or a girl, to be three dimensional. That's just lazy writing.

What makes the character a "prick"? Everyone keeps saying that, but no one provides any context. Lazy generalizations. No surprise.

And how is the movie MJ really that different than the comic version (for those that say she's a b*tch or **** for dating a few guys over the course of several films) who would flit from man to man on a whim, never cognizant of the fact that her actions had consequences, never caring who she hurt as long as she had a good time.

Have you guys ever even read the Romita comics? I mean, sure these comics were written for children at the time (heck, they STILL seem like they are), but these comics are no fantastic character study, here. All the characters were vapid, shallow and difficult to care about or empathize with by anyone's standards (When Romita took over). All this whining about who wasn't likable or true to their comic counterpart is a moot point because the early comics were fluff that is now looked at through rose-colored glasses (Dtiko's work excluded...and yes, he did have a BIG bearing on how these characters were developed interpreted- just look at how they fell apart after he left).

 

[The Morningstar]

I don't give a **** about the comics. I'm talking about a character in a movie. The love interest. The love interest, in this case, MJ, was a horrible character. Apart from in the first one.

She was self absorbed, constantly whinging, no matter what Parker tried to do or say it wasn't enough (particularly in SM3), playing with the mens feelings like it was nothing etc. I just couldn't buy that Peter Parker would be so enamoured with this girl.

Like I said, it's nothing to do with comic book accuracy or any of that ****. It's about how the character in the movie was written.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I don't give a **** about the comics. I'm talking about a character in a movie. The love interest. The love interest, in this case, MJ, was a horrible character. Apart from in the first one.

She was self absorbed, constantly whinging, no matter what Parker tried to do or say it wasn't enough (particularly in SM3), playing with the mens feelings like it was nothing etc. I just couldn't buy that Peter Parker would be so enamoured with this girl.

Like I said, it's nothing to do with comic book accuracy or any of that ****. It's about how the character in the movie was written.

So you consider the adaptation of the character of Mary Jane from comic book to movie screen a failure on account of the fact that she didn't appeal to you. Apparently, the general audience (normal, well adjusted people) disagrees with the small niche of bothered fanboys who will whine and complain that a character didn't meet their exact specification on internet message boards.

Hard to argue with that

 

[Oscorp]

Seriously. MJ in Raimi's movies were almost NOTHING like the MJ from the comics.

Oh...let's have Connors turn into a fire breathing bear instead of a humanoid lizard in this film. Only the nerdy fanboys would complain.

The main love interest in a movie like this SHOULD be likeable. And no matter how you put it, she wasn't a well written character in any way and the only thing that she had in common with her comic counterpart was her name and red hair. I don't care if you liked her or not, her character in the movies were bad. Really, really bad.

Mary Jane in Raimi's films was an insecure attentionwh*re with no self distance. Sure, many girls such as her exist in the real world but MJ isn't supposed to be one of those. And still, comic accuracy or not, she was a bad love interest.

Call me a whiny fanboy for all you want but for me to like a movie, I want great characters and MJ wasn't.

 

[The Morningstar]

So you consider the adaptation of the character of Mary Jane from comic book to movie screen a failure on account of the fact that she didn't appeal to you. Apparently, the general audience (normal, well adjusted people) disagrees with the small niche of bothered fanboys who will whine and complain that a character didn't meet their exact specification on internet message boards.

Hard to argue with that

You're still not getting it, are you?

It's nothing to do with adaptation. I don't give a **** about the comics or comic book accuracy.

I don't care if MJ from Raimi's movies was a completely brand new character created for the movies. The character was poorly written and I didn't buy that Peter Parker was so enamoured with her. It's nothing to do with her appealing to me. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with it being comic book accurate or not. Hell, it has nothing to do with it being a comic book movie. Even if it was just some generic rom/com MJ would have been a poorly written character because there is nothing about her that is appealing.

You're so busy with your righteous indignation about "little fanboys" you're completely missing the point.

Comic book movie or not, accuracy to the source material or not... MJ was a poorly written character that apart from the first film had zero redeeming features and I couldn't buy that the lead character was so in love with her.

Basically, what you are doing is just taking shots at people who disagree with you. Who is the silly person now? People disagree with you, get the hell over it. Why are you so defensive about it? Seriously? Are you ****ing Sam Raimi or Avi Arad in disguise or something?

 

[©KAW]

His Peter Parker also had to be a dumb ass to even care for someone like her. MJ was jealous of him for being Spider-Man, I guy who saved her life and many others, as well. Yet, she gets jealous when she thinks that Spider-Man is stealing her thunder.

 

[Oscorp]

^yeah, that's ridiculous!

 

[The Joker]

So you consider the adaptation of the character of Mary Jane from comic book to movie screen a failure on account of the fact that she didn't appeal to you. Apparently, the general audience (normal, well adjusted people) disagrees with the small niche of bothered fanboys who will whine and complain that a character didn't meet their exact specification on internet message boards.

Hard to argue with that

I don't know what character you were reading, but MJ of the comics was not remotely as selfish as Dunst's MJ.

Dunst's MJ was a self absorbed selfish biotch who threw her feminine wiles around like ninja stars. She dumped Flash and went straight to Harry, even though she clearly had zero romantic interest in him. Then she tongue wrestled with Spider-Man while she was still with Harry. She then gets engaged to John Jameson, and then tries to get with Peter behind John's back. She then jilts John at the altar in the end.

Finally she gets with the guy she supposedly really loves, and she is jealous of his fame as Spider-Man, she chastises him for not understanding how she feels when she never even bothers to tell him she was fired from her show. She expects Peter to tell her he loves her "Tell me you love me", and never says it back to him when he does say it. She shoots down his efforts to try and boost her moral ("Don't give me the horse thing") when she gets a bad review. She gives into Harry's weak demand to break Peter's heart. Harry didn't threaten her life or anyone elses except Peter's "If you want Peter to live, then you're going to do something for me". MJ of all people should know Peter would have been more than capable of dealing with Harry given how she's been witness first hand to Spidey over coming bigger odds and more powerful foes. But instead of just telling Peter what Harry is trying to do, she breaks his heart and dumps him. Oh yeah, and she somehow ends up kissing Harry, too.

What in the hell does Peter see in her? She is possibly the worst love interest ever put in a comic book movie.

 

[The Morningstar]

Ever put in a comic movie? How about ever put in a movie in general? lol

 

[Spider-Who?]

I agree that movie MJ was a very poorly written character. It seemed like if the writers needed something bad to happen, MJ was their scapegoat. I didn't have a problem with Dunst; just the writing and use of her character.

In terms of SM3, I got what they were TRYING to do with her character…but I just think they failed, be it due to lazy writing, time constraints, script cuts, whatever.

It’s totally natural to feel jealous of someone else’s success. Even your significant other’s success, if they’re flying high and you’re failing miserably, publicly and embarrassingly like MJ went through with her play. I get her frustration and jealousy. But how they made her handle it was weak and made her look more like a mean child than an upset adult when Peter was trying to help her.

Then again, it could be said that it was the writing of PETER that was weak. If her reaction and jealousy was too be taken seriously and understandably, then perhaps we needed to see Peter be emotionally unavailable to her because he was so obsessed with his own success that he was throwing it in her face. We never saw that. Sure, we saw him try to reference his perspective in an attempt to help her, but that in no way encapsulated anything that would make MJ’s reaction justified. Perhaps if Peter had been written better, we would see her jealousy and frustration with him in a more honest and forgiving light.

 

[Oscorp]

I don't know what character you were reading, but MJ of the comics was not remotely as selfish as Dunst's MJ.

Dunst's MJ was a self absorbed selfish biotch who threw her feminine wiles around like ninja stars. She dumped Flash and went straight to Harry, even though she clearly had zero romantic interest in him. Then she tongue wrestled with Spider-Man while she was still with Harry. She then gets engaged to John Jameson, and then tries to get with Peter behind John's back. She then jilts John at the altar in the end.

Finally she gets with the guy she supposedly really loves, and she is jealous of his fame as Spider-Man, she chastises him for not understanding how she feels when she never even bothers to tell him she was fired from her show. She expects Peter to tell her he loves her "Tell me you love me", and never says it back to him when he does say it. She shoots down his efforts to try and boost her moral ("Don't give me the horse thing") when she gets a bad review. She gives into Harry's weak demand to break Peter's heart. Harry didn't threaten her life or anyone elses except Peter's "If you want Peter to live, then you're going to do something for me". MJ of all people should know Peter would have been more than capable of dealing with Harry given how she's been witness first hand to Spidey over coming bigger odds and more powerful foes. But instead of just telling Peter what Harry is trying to do, she breaks his heart and dumps him. Oh yeah, and she somehow ends up kissing Harry, too.

What in the hell does Peter see in her? She is possibly the worst love interest ever put in a comic book movie.

Great post with great points! Thank you!

I agree that movie MJ was a very poorly written character. It seemed like if the writers needed something bad to happen, MJ was their scapegoat. I didn't have a problem with Dunst; just the writing and use of her character.

Yeah, Dunst is an OK actress actually. It's just that MJ was so poorly written that Dunst couldn't do anything else than appear as horrible. Now, I actually understand her when she grew tired of being in those movies.

 

[El Payaso]

"Are they going to force the romance plot down our throats...again?"

Haven't they ever?

 

[chaseter]

You're not going to see that until you see the film itself.

Neither are you.

 

[FreeRadical]

So you consider the adaptation of the character of Mary Jane from comic book to movie screen a failure on account of the fact that she didn't appeal to you. Apparently, the general audience (normal, well adjusted people) disagrees with the small niche of bothered fanboys who will whine and complain that a character didn't meet their exact specification on internet message boards.

Hard to argue with that

You actually think the most of us who didn't like Raimi's MJ as not normal, and not well adjusted? Not good. Go into your local book shop/comic store and read a Spider-man comic with MJ in it. That's a character that is caring and supportive. If I went out and fought against any of Spidey's rogues gallery I wouldn't want to come home to Raimi's MJ complaining about why I didn't bring home the milk, even though I had a royal rumble with Venom (wait a sec, Raimi killed him off), I mean't to say Doc Ock (oh wait, he's dead too)

 

[chaseter]

She complained in one movie..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................but that somehow equates to the entire trilogy.

Every character has to have ups and downs in a movie. You think MJ would have been better had she been supportive of Peter and they had any problems at home? Yeah that's realistic. Yeah that's depth. All MJ really is in the comics is a pretty face that says 'Go get 'em Tiger' every single time right? She has no relationship issues. No troubles at home. No insecurities. No dreams for herself. Right? RIGHT?

Some of you must be living in the 50s. Have a hard day at work, come home, and expect your wife to have dinner on the table wearing a dress and a perfect smile to support her hard working man! Clean the house and fix me a sammich!

 

[Oscorp]

It's not only about her *****ing in SM3. Joker's post summed it up nicely for you. Read it again.

MJ was a badly written character. Not much to argue about, really.

 

[The Morningstar]

She was constantly whinging in SM3. She whinged a lot in SM2 also. Plus she didn't give a crap about screwing around with Peter, Flash, Harry and John Jameson. I mean, she jilted Jameson on their wedding day. Next time we see her in SM3, she's being a self absorbed ***** who is jealous of a friggin superhero? Yea, nice person.

They didn't need to make her an insufferable ***** to make her a three dimensional character.

 

[chaseter]

Some of you really know nothing about the characters. MJ didn't want to be tied down. She was a serial dater in the damn comics. Pete asks her to Marry him and she says no and leaves. Peter throws a ***** fit and MJ gets tired of that **** and leaves. MJ didn't know what she wanted and she certainly wasn't ready for a commitment. But oh noes she leaves JJ Jr. on the alter. What a ***** right?

MJ was ****ing known as a 'party girl'.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Both MJ and Peter were awful in SM3. I didn't mind "teh man hopping" in the previous movies.

EDIT: I'll never forget what Dunst says in the SM3 commentary: "This movie is sooo dramatic..."

 

[The Morningstar]

Some of you really know nothing about the characters. MJ didn't want to be tied down. She was a serial dater in the damn comics. Pete asks her to Marry him and she says no and leaves. Peter throws a ***** fit and MJ gets tired of that **** and leaves. MJ didn't know what she wanted and she certainly wasn't ready for a commitment. But oh noes she leaves JJ Jr. on the alter. What a ***** right?

MJ was ****ing known as a 'party girl'.

Party girl, not a ****.

Besides, I don't care about comic book accuracy. I couldn't buy the fact that Peter was just utterly infatuated with this woman.

Excluding the first movie, what actual reasons does Pete have for being head over heels in love with her?

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Some of you really know nothing about the characters. MJ didn't want to be tied down. She was a serial dater in the damn comics. Pete asks her to Marry him and she says no and leaves. Peter throws a ***** fit and MJ gets tired of that **** and leaves. MJ didn't know what she wanted and she certainly wasn't ready for a commitment. But oh noes she leaves JJ Jr. on the alter. What a ***** right?

MJ was ****ing known as a 'party girl'.

This is very true. MJ has said aultiple timesthat shes a "free" girl or something like that and needs to live life. She didn't want to be held down and it wasn't until (if I remember correctly) the 1980's when Tom Defalco (or Roger Stern) came onto ASM that they gave her a strong backstory. This is fact.

 

[©KAW]

Neither are you.

Yeah, but I've already seen how Raimi handled the romance in his films thrice.
Let's all hope for better character interactions between the two leads, eh?

 

[Golgo-13]

When i made this thread i was referring to the 'all about a girl' plot that seemed to be the center of the Raimi films.

I know that Spider-Man is all about his relationships but MJ was the center of his whole existence. She was the damsel in distress three times in a row in the final battles; his origin was caused by him taking her pic, as was him going to the wrestling match. It just became a bit too much.

If there's one thing i'm glad about, is the fact that we won't get to hear Tobey say ''Oh, Boy'' again.