The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Cinema Blend's Katey Rich's Response to Fan Reaction to Shailene Woodley.

[SpideyFan866]

"If You Think Shailene Woodley Isn't Pretty Enough For The Amazing Spider-Man 2, You Don't Deserve The Movie"

The world of comics is vast and broad and welcoming to just about everyone, no matter how much the stereotype of The Simpsons "Comic Book Guy" clings to it. But every now and then Comic Book Guy and his nastier counterparts pop up, especially on the Internet, and especially on sites like this one where every single tidbit of information about an upcoming superhero movie is dissected as if it contains the code to the universe.

Yesterday we posted the first on-set images of Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, currently in production in New York. Because they were pictures of an actress walking from place to place on the set, not in costume, the notable difference was seeing her hair tinted to Mary Jane's signature red. Honestly, the photos weren't that interesting. Until the comments started.

"Omg she looks horrible I hope they can do something with that face of hers." "Mary Jane is supposed to be hot." "Looks horrible as a redhead." The comments on our site weren't actually as bad as they were elsewhere on the Internet, and not half as bad as the so-called satire posted at Comic Book Movie, with instructions on how to make Woodley hot enough to play "every nerd's wet dream." The "satire" was so close to the real thing that most of their commenters didn't get the difference, and reading it makes your skin crawl because you just know that's exactly how a strong handful of fanboys feel, no irony intended.

You guys. This is what Shailene Woodley looks like:

You know why she doesn't look like the character from the comics, with an exaggerated waist and enormous breasts? Because she's a ****ing human being, with a bone structure and muscles and fat and all the things that allow her to move about in the world, not just to sit down and pose like a sex fantasy. The Amazing Spider-Man made a concerted effort toward making Peter Parker's world realer, making the flirtation between him and Gwen Stacy feel more authentic and even the costumes more realistic. Shailene Woodley, who showed amazing naturalism in The Descendants as well as her acclaimed Sundance film The Spectacular Now, ought to fit into that perfectly. To criticize her natural looks is to miss the entire aesthetic of the franchise as Marc Webb has re-imagined it.

I'm tempted to respond to all of this by posting more photos of Woodley looking stunning on the red carpet, or my account of meeting her in person to talk about The Descendants and finding her not only gorgeous but engaging and interesting. But **** that-- if you are writing off an actress in a superhero movie based on one shot of her on set, you don't deserve the movie. It's not Shailene Woodley's looks that will make her role in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 good; it is her talent. She's proven she's got plenty of it. Everything else is just noise from fans who idiotically expect their ink and paper "wet dream" to take human form.

Amen to this.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Link to original article

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/You-...ider-Man-2-You-Don-t-Deserve-Movie-36067.html

 

[spideyboy_1111]

She's over/reacting just like she says the fanboys are. The pictures of her on set arnt flattering. Does it make her ugly? No she's beautiful when at her best. But those pics just don't look good and people are allowed to be alarmed by it

 

[DigificWriter]

She's over/reacting just like she says the fanboys are. The pictures of her on set arnt flattering. Does it make her ugly? No she's beautiful when at her best. But those pics just don't look good and people are allowed to be alarmed by it

I'm sorry, but the author of that article is not overreacting. She's rightfully calling out people for their stupidity (and it IS stupid to dismiss Woodley just because she's not this super-hot drop-dead gorgeous bombshell).

 

[spider-neil]

When you sign up to showbiz you're fair game for criticism and if you can't take that critisism then make way for literally hundreds of actors willing and waiting to take your place.

 

[CoolCadaver49]

I'm sorry, but the author of that article is not overreacting. She's rightfully calling out people for their stupidity (and it IS stupid to dismiss Woodley just because she's not this super-hot drop-dead gorgeous bombshell).

I dunno, a lot of people seem to think that her appearance is a major part of the character. I have no idea how accurate that is.

Personally, I think calling her ugly is a huge exaggeration. She looks perfectly normal; I have zero problem with her appearance.

 

[Octoberist]

She's over/reacting just like she says the fanboys are. The pictures of her on set arnt flattering. Does it make her ugly? No she's beautiful when at her best. But those pics just don't look good and people are allowed to be alarmed by it

Lets face it, geekdom is a boys club. Katey is reasonable and if you read the comments I've seen on Comic Book Movie, where emotionally insecure nerds dont know their limits, then you'll understand.

 

[bapi]

She's not super sexy. Just cute.

 

[Octoberist]

The article is just trying to use this situation to forward some feminist agenda to not judge women by their looks. But like the above poster said, this is how showbusiness works and this is a comicbook character.

For example, if the guy playing Thor was skinny he'd get the same criticism from fans.

She's attacking the cliches of fanboyism and yes it can get ugly because people don't know when to stop. And while what you day about men is true, women get it harder than men in the geek world due to the demographic. It's mostly men making stupid comments online. And look at 'fake geek girls' and how they cannot win. As a dude I hate this 'agenda' speak. It's trying to disguises itself as constructive or 'smart speak' when it's not bevause you're not seeing it from both sides. This is the case of playing the devil's advocate helps to be more open minded even if you disagree with it.

 

[ITheSymbioteI]

I hate, hate, HAATE, and just so the words aren't mistaken, absolutely hate from the bottom of my core, the so called 'community' that breathes in C-freaking-BM. The most opinionated, narrow minded, fanboyish, and the worst regulated website I've seen.

The amount of hate posted on a persons looks there was just so damn disgusting, it made me actually swear never to go there again. None, and I really mean NONE would even have a ******s chance of even being able to land a woman like her, and they complain about wanting MJ to be nothing but jack off material. Disgusting.

MJ is an actress/model. Not a goddamn PLAYBOY MODEL or a freaking pornstar.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm sorry, but the author of that article is not overreacting. She's rightfully calling out people for their stupidity (and it IS stupid to dismiss Woodley just because she's not this super-hot drop-dead gorgeous bombshell).

i disagree whole heatedly. being a bombshell to MJ is what being a boy-scout is to Captain America, What the Goatee and womanizing is to tony stark. Mj is most certainly more than just good looks, but those looks... are VERY important to her character.

 

[Johnny]

It's not the movie we deserve. But the one we desperately need.

 

[GuestStar2004]

i didnt fancy kirsten dunst but her looks were least of raimis film problems, so Shailene Woodley is a babe in comparison

i remember before TDKR was released everyone was saying Anne Hathaway was to skinny to be catwomen

and Jennifer Lawrence's face was to chubby to play Mystique in Xmen first class

its pretty stupid

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I dunno, a lot of people seem to think that her appearance is a major part of the character. I have no idea how accurate that is.

Personally, I think calling her ugly is a huge exaggeration. She looks perfectly normal; I have zero problem with her appearance.

I agree, and i don't see many people thankfully calling Shailene "Ugly" I see them calling the photos recently taken of her which are very much like candid make-up-less raw photos you see in tabloids all the time. Shailene is gorgeous, just not in those photos. And it's perfectly ok for people to be worried she's going to look like Raimi's frumpy jane

 

[Octoberist]

You guys need to check out that CBM article; is it suppose to be satire? Is it legit? There's no sense of irony behind it to make it funny not does it have a snarky voice to indicate its a parody. Even the commenters are confused by it.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

i disagree whole heatedly. being a bombshell to MJ is what being a boy-scout is to Captain America, What the Goatee and womanizing is to tony stark. Mj is most certainly more than just good looks, but those looks... are VERY important to her character.

Gotta agree. I have no problem with Woodley mind you, she's kinda cute and has a little baby fat that I like. Hope she make a great MJ

But you are right.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

She's attacking the cliches of fanboyism and yes it can get ugly because people don't know when to stop. And while what you day about men is true, women get it harder than men in the geek world due to the demographic. It's mostly men making stupid comments online. And look at 'fake geek girls' and how they cannot win. As a dude I hate this 'agenda' speak. It's trying to disguises itself as constructive or 'smart speak' when it's not bevause you're not seeing it from both sides. This is the case of playing the devil's advocate helps to be more open minded even if you disagree with it.

while i get all that.. men objectify everything... and being a gay man... men are sexualized just as much. There's plenty of shots of nearly naked male heroes all over main stream comics... and umm large arms, chest's and packages all for us to enjoy... gay men want tight clothes and muscular bodies dude on dude action and teasingly nude scenes... straight men want the same thing... but with girls. Both sexes are victimized.

 

[DigificWriter]

i disagree whole heatedly. being a bombshell to MJ is what being a boy-scout is to Captain America, What the Goatee and womanizing is to tony stark. Mj is most certainly more than just good looks, but those looks... are VERY important to her character.

There have only been a handful of times that the 616 ' bombshell MJ has been adapted in non-literature media, which runs counter to that idea.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I hate, hate, HAATE, and just so the words aren't mistaken, absolutely hate from the bottom of my core, the so called 'community' that breathes in C-freaking-BM. The most opinionated, narrow minded, fanboyish, and the worst regulated website I've seen.

The amount of hate posted on a persons looks there was just so damn disgusting, it made me actually swear never to go there again. None, and I really mean NONE would even have a ******s chance of even being able to land a woman like her, and they complain about wanting MJ to be nothing but jack off material. Disgusting.

MJ is an actress/model. Not a goddamn PLAYBOY MODEL or a freaking pornstar.

i gotta agree with that as well... there's people going over-board on both sides. I feel Katey Rich went overboard and generalized the entire fanbase... rather than focusing it on this incredibly small and pathetic group of people.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

There have only been a handful of times that the 616 ' bombshell MJ has been adapted in non-literature media, which runs counter to that idea.

616 bombshell, confident MJ has NEVER been depicted in live action.. That's the point. The only near perfect 616 mj we ever got was in cartoons. People want it in live action... I have a feeling This new mj is going to be based on the new Cartoon Ultimate spider-man.. which, isn't horrible.. but quite a long way from Spectacular and the 90s cartoon. There's really no reason we can't get a Mary Jane that's a knock out as much as she's a good actress.. she needs to be on par with gwen, she doesn't have to look like a playboy model (that'd be horrid)

 

[Octoberist]

while i get all that.. men objectify everything... and being a gay man... men are sexualized just as much. There's plenty of shots of nearly naked male heroes all over main stream comics... and umm large arms, chest's and packages all for us to enjoy... gay men want tight clothes and muscular bodies dude on dude action and teasingly nude scenes... straight men want the same thing... but with girls. Both sexes are victimized.

On this topic there's always a fine line. Everyone objectifies each sex for sure but people online, from CBM to imdb to youtube or where ever, tend not to care to the point where it evoking some cruel crap.

Remember when Daniel Craig was announced as Bond and all the crap he got for it? Some groups of people wanted him to fail due to his looks; craigisnotbond.com was even created. It was bad! And years later, people think he's one of the best Bonds. And both men as women love him.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

On this topic there's always a fine line. Everyone objectifies each sex for sure but people online, from CBM to imdb to youtube or where ever, tend not to care to the point where it evoking some cruel crap.

Remember when Daniel Craig was announced as Bond and all the crap he got for it? Some groups of people wanted him to fail due to his looks; craigisnotbond.com was even created. It was bad! And years later, people think he's one of the best Bonds. And both men as women love him.

again, and i get that. there's alot of disgusting irrational people out there.. but i don't think that's the majority of the spidey fanbase (online or off), and This article targeted everyone. which is completely overreacting

 

[spider-neil]

The article basically asks fans to stop being fans. It works the other way too, if a comic character is fat (Doc Ock) we want a fat person to play them or if a character is skinny (Bruce Banner) we want a skinny actor to play him or if a character is 'average' looking (Peter Parker) we want an average looking person to play him. Fans will always be fans so stop deluding yourself (article writer) that that will ever change.

 

[Johnny]

616 bombshell, confident MJ has NEVER been depicted in live action.. That's the point. The only near perfect 616 mj we ever got was in cartoons. People want it in live action... I have a feeling This new mj is going to be based on the new Cartoon Ultimate spider-man.. which, isn't horrible.. but quite a long way from Spectacular and the 90s cartoon. There's really no reason we can't get a Mary Jane that's a knock out as much as she's a good actress.. she needs to be on par with gwen, she doesn't have to look like a playboy model (that'd be horrid)

I have no problem whatsoever if she is showcased like the SSM version. Though I hope if that ever happens, we don't get an "I'm very randy" comments towards MJ. lol That show had lots of balls and I loved it. But like I said before, that version is tricky. Raimi didn't want to portray her this way because he feared the general audience will find her to be unlikable. Keep in mind, that general audience is the main market not the loud comic book fans. So who's to say that Webb wasn't afraid of the same thing?

 

[ITheSymbioteI]

i gotta agree with that as well... there's people going over-board on both sides. I feel Katey Rich went overboard and generalized the entire fanbase... rather than focusing it on this incredibly small and pathetic group of people.

You have to generalize when you talk about the tone of the website, even if it is that group of the pathetic individuals. One rotten fish makes the whole damn pond dirty. The lowest common denominator is always the one to be judged by, and on that website it is loooow. People with brains don't post much there, and the rest are the seething comments about anything not Marvel owned. The entire website gives off the tone of those select people, so you have to generalize. Go mention the flaws of Iron Man or Thor and you'll get burned in a pyre like a witch.

The regulation there is literally non-existant. The owners/mods of the website couldn't give less of a damn about banning anyone because the only and only thing they care about is getting more people to their site, and they feel banning anyone would decrease the number, so they shouldn't do it.

Pathetic how the site is run, really. SHH might have its own bunch of unbearable people, like any other website, but its well regulated and things aren't taken anywhere near as far.

The feel of going to that website and reading comments is like walking into a medieval viking ****ehouse. Full of smelly drunks that just see women as sex objects