The Amazing Spider-Man No Mary Jane for reboot?

[bizbaz20]

It's kinda unfair when people post the ugliest pictures of her. She could have looked like this.

javascript: window.close()javascript: window.close()javascript:; javascript:;
http://javascript<b></b>:;
javascript:;
http://javascript<b></b>:;

(Sorry the pictures are so huge)

I think there's potential for Kirsten to be pretty, but they never let her wear any makeup and didn't dress her in sexy clothes. She could have probably looked more like MJ if they tried. But they didn't.

But I admit, she's still no Mary Jane.





But damn....... Maggie Gllyanhall looks way older than 32 there...

 

[Infinity9999x]

I've never though Dunst was ugly. I think she's pretty. Sure, she doesn't make me immediately jump to "that's Mary Jane" when I see her, but as I said, the script for MJ sucked. She wasn't written like Mary Jane, so I wouldn't have been happy with anyone.

 

[LarryLegend]

Dunst is fuggly and has really gone downhill from the first film. Plus bad actress.

 

[Catman]

Kirsten Dunst was very, very attractive from 1999 till about 2004. Just watch The Virgin Suicides, Bring It On, Get Over It, Crazy/Beautiful, and the first Spider-Man. I've been a SHH member since 2002, and trust me, no one was complaining about Dunst's casting back then. Everybody thought she was incredibly hot in the original film - especially during the infamous rain scene. The problem is that Dunst, maybe because of all the success, started drinking and it started to affect her looks. By Spider-Man 2 she had lost a ridiculous amount of weight and by Spider-Man 3 she had aged like 10 years even though it had only been like 5 years since the first installment. Then she went into rehab and hasn't really worked much since then. Another former child star who got washed up in her `20s.

 

[bizbaz20]

^Yeah I do agree, she was a very pretty girl before but all the partying, drugs, drink, smoking and probably not sleeping or eating took a toll on her looks.

And yes, I do agree that in SM3 she looked alot aged but I DO think the make-up team could have tried harder to give her the glamourous look that Mary Jane had.
It seemed they never allowed her to wear makeup for some reason.

I think she is looking better these days, since she's been to rehab and she's got movies coming out and I heard she was great in 'All good things.'

I admit, she is all wrong for Mary Jane but I don't like it when people say Kirsten is 'so ugly and always has been.'

I mean, she's not the best but she can look pretty.

 

[Catman]

I DO think the make-up team could have tried harder to give her the glamourous look that Mary Jane had. It seemed they never allowed her to wear makeup for some reason.

In the first film she didn't need make-up. She was a cute 19-year-old with a great body. And that's what Sam Raimi was looking for. The movie starts out when the characters are still in high school. There's no reason for MJ to already look like a model. Then when the characters graduate she's struggling to find a gig and has to work at a diner. Again, it makes no sense for her to look glamourous. Many will disagree, but Dunst was great in the first installment. Even the writing and performance don't bother me. I understand what Raimi was doing. It's in the sequels where they dropped the ball. But some of that blame goes to Dunst as well. She lost too much weight. For a pale chick that's not good. She looked sick. The make-up and wardrobe department didn't have much to work with.

 

[Ken-Kaniff]

In the first film she didn't need make-up. She was a cute 19-year-old with a great body. And that's what Sam Raimi was looking for. The movie starts out when the characters are still in high school. There's no reason for MJ to already look like a model. Then when the characters graduate she's struggling to find a gig and has to work at a diner. Again, it makes no sense for her to look glamourous. Many will disagree, but Dunst was great in the first installment. Even the writing and performance don't bother me. I understand what Raimi was doing. It's in the sequels where they dropped the ball. But some of that blame goes to Dunst as well. She lost too much weight. For a pale chick that's not good. She looked sick. The make-up and wardrobe department didn't have much to work with.

I think you do have a good point. Well said.

 

[KalMart]

If they eventually do go with Mary Jane again....how many guys will Parker have to watch her go through before he finally gets her?

 

[Infinity9999x]

In the first film she didn't need make-up. She was a cute 19-year-old with a great body. And that's what Sam Raimi was looking for. The movie starts out when the characters are still in high school. There's no reason for MJ to already look like a model. Then when the characters graduate she's struggling to find a gig and has to work at a diner. Again, it makes no sense for her to look glamourous. Many will disagree, but Dunst was great in the first installment. Even the writing and performance don't bother me. I understand what Raimi was doing. It's in the sequels where they dropped the ball. But some of that blame goes to Dunst as well. She lost too much weight. For a pale chick that's not good. She looked sick. The make-up and wardrobe department didn't have much to work with.

I thought she was all right acting, but I still think the script wasn't written well for her character. She's a completely different personality then what we got in the movies. And I would rather see Mary Jane then a completely different character with the same name.

But again, I don't blame any of this on Dunst. She didn't write the script.

 

[Catman]

Movie MJ was a combination of Comic MJ and Gwen Stacy. Which is why it's dumb that Gwen actually shows up in the third movie. Perhaps that explains why MJ was so annoying in that movie. She lost all her sweetness to Gwen.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I liked MJ in the first film. I thought I was watching MJ. She was sweet and sexy and came from a damaged family. Her chemistry with Maguire was great. Still the best chemistry I've seen in a comic book film.

 

[KalMart]

Downey and Paltrow were good too.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Downey and Paltrow > MacGuire and Dunst

 

[Troy_Parker]

^This.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I liked MJ in the first film. I thought I was watching MJ. She was sweet and sexy and came from a damaged family. Her chemistry with Maguire was great. Still the best chemistry I've seen in a comic book film.

I wanted an MJ more like the comic book. A life of the party fireball, confident and spontaneous. And when we get to know her we see that she comes from a damaged family and puts on a lot of the "happy go lucky" attitude to cover it up.

 

[TheSlag]

I wanted an MJ more like the comic book. A life of the party fireball, confident and spontaneous. And when we get to know her we see that she comes from a damaged family and puts on a lot of the "happy go lucky" attitude to cover it up.

Exactly.

The party girl cover to hide the damaged (and deep, not shallow) insides.

Mr Owl... How many licks of the shallow party all the time outside shell... does it take to get to the chewy "real" insides?

Seriously, that and her transformation from the party all the time girl to her true self following Gwen's death is a great storyline. One we were deprived of in Raimi's verse.

 

[TheSlag]

Dunst is fuggly and has really gone downhill from the first film. Plus bad actress.

Hey NOW!!!!! Do NOT insult Ms. Snaggletooth!!!


Dunst was once very beautiful, and ONCE (not now) had the looks to pull off Gwen, NOT MJ. And that is NOT a knock on Gwen's looks or MJ's. Both are major league hotties as drawn back in the day. Just different.

That said, Dunst NEVER seemed to have the proper attitude or respect for the character or the storylines associated with the characters, including Spider-Man. :

She gave off the vibe that "this gig" was beneath her. Good Riddance!

 

[Catman]

I wanted an MJ more like the comic book. A life of the party fireball, confident and spontaneous. And when we get to know her we see that she comes from a damaged family and puts on a lot of the "happy go lucky" attitude to cover it up.

Seriously, that and her transformation from the party all the time girl to her true self following Gwen's death is a great storyline. One we were deprived of in Raimi's verse.

I think the problem was running time. Spider-Man and Green Goblin's origins took up a lot of time. Throwing in MJ the Party Girl would have complicated things. The movie we got was 2 hrs long and that was with a simplified MJ. And in 2002, no studio was gonna gamble on anything longer than 2 hrs for a superhero flick.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I felt MJ was a mix of all those things in SM1. She had that popular side to her where she's trying to cover up her damaged family. Her running to Flash's car gushing over how "Gorgeous" it is. Then when they drove away going, "Wooohoooo!"

MJ waving to her popular friends. Eating with the popular kids, hell dating Flash. It was enough. The movie is focused on Peter after all. We got the essence of it. We didn't need to see all of it, because this movie is about Peter's origins.

I think the characters have to grow. In three films in a row, you can't keep her as the rambunctious party girl all the time. But you keep the true spirit of the character as they grow, and that doesn't mean having the same attributes every time. MJ performed on stage, met a new man, and was moving on with her life. Peter rejected her, what is she suppose to do? He's staying back after she confessed her love to him. She thinks she has to move on and she does. She can't stay the same. Plus she got away from her family and was showing promise in her career. She's out of high school, and like everyone, you're not worried about the same things like being popular and the coolest person. I don't blame her for acting the way she did when Peter wanted to get back together. Maybe it was Dunst or something when her looks decreased. But if she looked the same from SM1 and showed a little more life then it would have been better. But in terms of the direction of her character? It was fine. She realized Peter was the man for her and she went back to him on the will of her own.

In SM3, now that's different. She was a selfish *****. I mean she said she wanted to face the dangers with him, then she's just *****ing about her career while Peter is actually saving lives. Saved her's twice too.

 

[bizbaz20]

I think MJ's character was written fine for the 1st movie and Kirsten played it well.

I think because it was her first big superhero film she gave it her all.

By the 2nd film you could tell she was a bit 'meh' about the job in that she didn't try as hard, plus the script had her being miserable, but I suppose it's understandable since Peter rejected her in the 1st film.

In the 3rd one they wrote her very self centered. All she cared about were the reviews of her play. She expected Peter to bend over backwards just because she got one bad review while he had to go out being a superhero.

She should be happy she was with Peter, yet she acted miserable alot of the film. But to be fair, Peter was acting overlly cocky and proud of being Spider-Man.

I also think Kirsten Dunst by that film forgot she was playing a sexy, bubbly, fiesty love interest in a superhero blockbuster and acted as if she was just 'going through the motions' and getting her scenes over and done with as if she didn't care.

I think if they had done a Spider-Man 4, hopefully everyone would have taken into account the flaws of Spider-Man 3 and hopefully they would have written MJ more... well MJ.


Bryce Dallas Howard was a good example of someone who you could tell was happy they were in a superhero film. She radiated positive energy in her scenes, which is what MJ should've been doing.

 

[sweetre15]

^ It irritates me when actors take Superhero film roles for granted,hell even Tobey seem to take his role for granted arounnd the time of SM3

 

[Doctor Jones]

Not really. It was because the material wasn't up to par with the first two. You could tell in everyone. Same with Raimi's directing. The story wasn't as strong so the same passion from the first two films weren't there. I mean Franco and Grace looked like the only people who were trying, so point to them for that.

 

[TheSlag]

/\.. Why are you always contradicting yourself? You say "not really" to the post, but then say it was "because the material was not up to par of the first two", but THEN, you say Franco and Topher was the only two "who were trying"????

Sheesh Man, MAKE up your mind.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think the problem was running time. Spider-Man and Green Goblin's origins took up a lot of time. Throwing in MJ the Party Girl would have complicated things. The movie we got was 2 hrs long and that was with a simplified MJ. And in 2002, no studio was gonna gamble on anything longer than 2 hrs for a superhero flick.

Well, if we were to redo the series, I wouldn't have had Goblin as the Villain in Spider-man one. I would have saved that for the third movie, with Gwen's death as the climax.

And Doctor Jones, I'm not saying we should have kept MJ as the rambunctious party girl. She would have to change and evolve in the movies, but the thing is, we never got her as Mary Jane. Mary Jane was that rambunctious, confident, bombshell type-girl who didn't take anyone's **** and did her own thing. Maybe have part of the movie be about Pete trying to crack those defenses a bit. And then we learn that she has the abusive father, and we see a lot of the confidence and such is a defense mechanism because she's afraid to let people in.

Then we could have seen more of the open, caring MJ. One who's not quite as afraid to put herself out there, especially as she fell in love with Pete.

 

[MrSpyder]

I would like to see MJ in the movie, but not much in a role where its overshadowing Gwen. Eventually we all know she ends up with Peter.