The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Shailene Woodley COULD BE Mary Jane Watson.....in TASM3 - Part 3

[AbsractPo3tic]

Question for anyone saying whether they would go with a 616 MJ or ultimate: if there is no high school equivalent of MJ in the 616 universe then couldn't they do both? She didn't exist until Pete got to college so the 17 or 18 year old version of her is going to look and act differently than the grown woman version of her. Anytime I see this ultimate/616 thing it loses me

 

[SpideyFan866]

Question for anyone saying whether they would go with a 616 MJ or ultimate: if there is no high school equivalent of MJ in the 616 universe then couldn't they do both? She didn't exist until Pete got to college so the 17 or 18 year old version of her is going to look and act differently than the grown woman version of her. Anytime I see this ultimate/616 thing it loses me

Agreed. And, yeah. The whole 616 vs. USM argument is pointless because, like every other character, MJ in this series will/is likely based on multiple iterations of the character, in comics and out.

So to complain that she's not enough like 616 MJ, even look wise, is asanine.

Marc Webb has prided himself on drawing from multiple sources to craft these characters, and will not be drawing from one in particular. So to suggest/expect that this MJ will be based solely on 616, or even USM, is not wise.

If anything, we'll see an MJ that is quite similar to the version featured in TSSM. In that series, MJ was an amalgam on the 616, USM, and (partially) the Raimi film version. A well rounded representation of what came before, without being to much like any one version.

We will likely get the same here.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Agreed. And, yeah. The whole 616 vs. USM argument is pointless because, like every other character, MJ in this series will/is likely based on multiple iterations of the character, in comics and out.

So to complain that she's not enough like 616 MJ, even look wise, is asanine.

Marc Webb has prided himself on drawing from multiple sources to craft these characters, and will not be drawing from one in particular. So to suggest/expect that this MJ will be based solely on 616, or even USM, is not wise.

If anything, we'll see an MJ that is quite similar to the version featured in TSSM. In that series, MJ was an amalgam on the 616, USM, and (partially) the Raimi film version. A well rounded representation of what came before, without being to much like any one version.

We will likely get the same here.

OR, he'll also put his own spin on the character and how she fits in this universe which is what he should do. As far as the looks thing: NO ONE is ever going to be completely satisfied, for every 10 people that say they think a woman is beautiful there will be 10 other people that say she isn't or isn't impressed, so the whole argument over her looks is moot to me

 

[Vid Electricz]

out of curiosity Vid, what are your reasons for not wanting Shailene? In detail please.

Huh? I never voiced or implied such a thing. After all I've written here, you've somehow come to this conclusion? My argument is very clearly against those that wanted her out of the role and replaced by someone "prettier". I'm sure Shailene is a fine actress, but the lame, pedantic fanboy reasoning for not wanting her in the role are what I'm railing against.

As I've enumerated many times, I was very excited and by the set pics of her on the motorcycle and working in the cafe. I was eager to see what interesting direction they were going to take the character (that didn't rely on her being "hot" as her primary trait).

 

[JOE]

In the comics she's portrayed as a 10/10. Is it wrong to want the same thing in the movie?

 

[Vid Electricz]

What facts?

Well first you called me a victim. Not true, that implies that I've been hurt, and I haven't been hurt, amused is more accurate. I point out when people make unecessary attacks on me and others, but that doesn't make me a victim or a martyr.

Then you called the people I'm referring to as an "imaginary group". Not imaginary. Like I said, you must've missed the posts, and again, some have been deleted.

Finally, you said that my only reasons for not wanting Shailene were based on looks. Not true, I've made other arguments.

I suppose you're correct about these not being "facts" but merely your opinions, but you did present them as facts, and they are wrong.

Having a "dog in this fight" is an old saying, it refers to having a stake in an issue or debate. And like I said, I don't really see what stake you have in this debate, especially when you say you don't support Shailene one way or the other. All I can see is that you enjoy getting into arguments with people who have never spoken to you before.


I wouldn't disagree that you have intelligent, salient things to say, you seem like an intelligent person. The thing is though, that stuff is drowned out because your comments seem to be laced with sarcasm, aggression, and personal attacks. Especially that last response to sl500Jazz. He's always very polite and reserved, even in heated debates, but you were all kinds of rude and insulting to him. If it wasn't for this stuff I'd probably take you more seriously.

You mentioned that you feel like your'e talking to little kids.....on the contrary, I think it's you who might need a little nap and a time out.

Now let's see if you can respond to me like a grown up without the insults and aggression, and maybe I'll open my ears a little more to what you have to say. If not though, don't expect a response from me....I get tired of talking to little kids too.

Nah, I don't enjoy getting into arguments (contrary to how it may look. lol).

Maybe I've missed the posts you've mentioned, but I imagine that they were few and far between.

As I've mentioned, I take exception not with people who may have issues with Shailene Woodley (Maybe they really hate her as an actress? Haven't seen anyone voice this), but rather their reasons why. Remember the storm of hatred and misogyny around the time that she was cast? Calling her ugly (when she's clearly not) and not "pretty enough" for the role? That's what I take exception with, when, as Phantasm said, she meets 99% of the criteria for playing the character. The rest is to do with unrealsitic expectations in comparing an actual woman to a comic book drawing. This is what I'm railing against. I think I've made that pretty clear.

As for the victims comment. I see more people attacking Shailene for not being a bombshell supermodel like the cartoon drawing in the comics, than people attacking those that don't care for her (for whatever reason). After all, remember the veritable ****storm of hatred and vitriol that erupted when set pictures of Shailene surfaced?

I am sorry Vid Electricz if I gave you the wrong impression or made you feel as though you were being attacked, but some of the comments you've made have been nasty and insulting. Everyone who thinks that looks do play into MJ's character is not just some "ignorant" "pedantic" "pathetic" "childish" "uninformed" fanboy. That, my friend, is a "lame" attempt to undermine MY argument(your words), and you've essentially vilified yourself. As Spund said, you are clearly an intelligent person and capable of debating an issue, but your arguments are laced with blatantly rude and condescending remarks.

We can agree to disagree about 616 MJ, Raimi's MJ, and Webb's future MJ, but resorting to insults over a disagreement that is so petty(a fictional character) is ridiculous.

I have never been one to insult Shailene's appearance- I think she's very pretty- but based on her performances I think that there may be better choices for this particular character. Acting ability is important, but (unrealistic comic book beauties aside) the look and feel of the character matters as well. 616 MJ is a bit of a maneater and a seductress. Shailene just doesn't strike me as that type of girl. Then again, Webb may choose to lose that aspect of the character... or ...better yet, I may be totally wrong about her, but time will tell.

Moving on:
In my opinion, 616 Mary Jane Watson IS an "interesting, realistic, multivalent", and three dimensional female character, despite being one of the most gorgeous women in comic book lore. I believe that her type of "physical attractiveness" does play an important role in her character development (unlike Gwen, Liz, Betty, etc), without undermining her strength of character. I think that she is a very positive female role model. She's confident, opinionated, and anything but the damsel in distress archetype. For crying out loud, this woman was able to outwit the Chameleon (a master of disguise) and kick his ass. What has Raimi's MJ done besides screaming at the top of her lungs for Spider-Man to save her? One of the reasons why most people who haven't read the comics can't stand the character.

And this isn't coming from some "uninformed" pervy fanboy. It's coming from a person who's read the comics, appreciates the character, and is looking forward to seeing her come to life on the big screen.

Oh, I've been reading the comics since before I can remember, but I don't believe that Mary Jane's goddess-like (as someone said. lol), "beauty" should necessarily be the primary focus of the character.

Check out the great miniseries "Spider-Man loves Mary Jane". She's a pretty young woman (much like Shailene), but the focus is on her character and not physical traits. There are so many other ways to represent the character that aren't demeaning or objectifying. The bombsheel, goddess routine is rote and tired. Something more fit for a teen movie or romantic comedy.

Also, sorry for coming off as rude, but it's frustrating sometimes when you keep reading the (let's be honest) same pedentic reasons for her not being "good enough" for the role. When you explain yourself in a very clear and succinct fashion, but it keeps going over certain posters heads, it makes you wonder if they've even bothered to read and digest what you've said.

 

[sl500jazz]

Question for anyone saying whether they would go with a 616 MJ or ultimate: if there is no high school equivalent of MJ in the 616 universe then couldn't they do both? She didn't exist until Pete got to college so the 17 or 18 year old version of her is going to look and act differently than the grown woman version of her. Anytime I see this ultimate/616 thing it loses me

The 616 MJ argument mostly came from Webb's portrayal of Gwen. Yes he added certain elements of Ultimate MJ to Gwen, and added his own ideas to the character, but her characterization is predominantly 616. Imo, those characters are a package deal like Betty and Veronica from the Archie comics. If you mostly draw from one universe for one character, you almost have to do the same for the other to give them that type of contrast, but I'm sure Webb is aware of that and will preserve their dynamic with or without Shailene.

Btw, I'd also like to clear up another misconception. When 616 MJ was introduced she was college age (about 19 or 20 to be exact) not in her mid-late 20s. Most likely,this is about the the age that Peter will be when MJ is finally introduced (film 3 or 4). They are ditching the high school aspect of the characters in TASM2.

Also in TSSM, Gwen and MJ were predominantly 616 in characterization with the younger and more modern Ultimate high school setting thrown into the backdrop.

OR, he'll also put his own spin on the character and how she fits in this universe which is what he should do. As far as the looks thing: NO ONE is ever going to be completely satisfied, for every 10 people that say they think a woman is beautiful there will be 10 other people that say she isn't or isn't impressed, so the whole argument over her looks is moot to me

Very true about the looks thing. I also don't doubt that whichever incarnation he is inspired by for MJ, he will put his own spin on it. So will Shailene's acting.

@ Majik1387 , the MJ from the series Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane is a very reasonable theory for what Webb may be trying to go for with the character, but I've never read it so I can't comment on that portrayal, but she's clearly a different version from 616. Can anyone comment on that version?

In the comics she's portrayed as a 10/10. Is it wrong to want the same thing in the movie?

Uh Oh... someone's going to explode.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Huh? I never voiced or implied such a thing. After all I've written here, you've somehow come to this conclusion? My argument is very clearly against those that wanted her out of the role and replaced by someone "prettier". I'm sure Shailene is a fine actress, but the lame, pedantic fanboy reasoning for not wanting her in the role are what I'm railing against.

As I've enumerated many times, I was very excited and by the set pics of her on the motorcycle and working in the cafe. I was eager to see what interesting direction they were going to take the character (that didn't rely on her being "hot" as her primary trait).

Oh, nvm mind then. It was unclear.

I feel the same way. Alot of what I saw excited me, but its not like we actually got to see her performance, and we likely won't until the dvd release, at earliest.

 

[Vid Electricz]

In the comics she's portrayed as a 10/10. Is it wrong to want the same thing in the movie?

No. You're free to want whatever you want.

But to be upset when your unrealistic expectations don't align with reality...

 

[SpideyFan866]

In the comics she's portrayed as a 10/10. Is it wrong to want the same thing in the movie?

No. It's isn't wrong to want that. But its wrong to EXPECT that, and then get upset when that's not what we get.

 

[JOE]

Uh Oh... someone's going to explode.

There's nothing wrong with it. She's a model in the comics. She should look like a model in the movie.

 

[SpideyFan866]

@sl500jazz With the exception of a few things, Marc Webb's Gwen was based heavily on the TSSM version of her.

 

[JOE]

No. You're free to want whatever you want.

But to be upset when your unrealistic expectations don't align with reality...

It's not unrealistic is what I'm trying to tell you. What's unrealistic about casting a sexy redhead that's a good actress? They did a fine job with Gwen.

 

[Vid Electricz]

It' fine of some people prefer someone other than Shailene in the role. The problem's begin when their sole reason, or at least their primary one, is her physical appearance/looks.

Bingo.

bravo at everything you're saying, Vid Electricz. bravo. wish more people could be like you.

 

[SpideyFan866]

It's not unrealistic is what I'm trying to tell you. What's unrealistic about casting a sexy redhead that's a good actress? They did a fine job with Gwen.

There's nothing wrong with casting a sexy redhead thats a good actress.

What's wrong is that you are expecting a certain (exact) version of this character, and with that, a certain look.

There's nothing wrong with WANTING that iteration, but EXPECTING it is asanine. ESPECIALLY when they've already shown with their other characters that they won't be drawing from just one version.

 

[SpideyFan866]

My issue isn't even with the fact that people are saying they don't like/want Shailene because of her looks. That is expected. People do that with all the time with these castings, though not to this extent. My issue is with the fact that people are saying this because they have convinced themselves we are getting, or rather, are supposed to be getting a specific version of the character, when that is far from the case.

 

[Vid Electricz]

There's nothing wrong with it. She's a model in the comics. She should look like a model in the movie.

And Electro wears a bright yellow and green costume with a star mask in the comics, and Aunt May is like 90 years old and decrepit in the comics...

And those things definitely weren't changed/updated for the movie adaptation, were they?

It's not unrealistic is what I'm trying to tell you. What's unrealistic about casting a sexy redhead that's a good actress? They did a fine job with Gwen.

Yes it is. Why is it necessary for her to be "sexy"? What does it bring to the story or character other than slavish servitude to the source material?

Marc Webb had the right idea with his casting and direction for the character.

 

[SpideyFan866]

There's nothing wrong with MJ being sexy. However, it isn't the most important part of her character. There are other things about her character that are much more important.

Her looks shouldn't be seen as the end all be all, make or break for the character.

 

[JOE]

Yes it is. Why is it necessary for her to be "sexy"? What does it bring to the story or character other than slavish servitude to the source material?

Marc Webb had the right idea with his casting and direction for the character.

You're right. Let's cast a below average looking girl to play Peter's main love interest even though she's a total babe in the comics. Scratch that, let's make her ugly. Show everyone that it's not all about the outside, it's the inside that matters. It'll add depth to Peter's overall character.

He had the right idea? Do you mind explaining to me why he cut her out of the movie?

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

You're right. Let's cast a below average looking girl to play Peter's main love interest even though she's a total babe in the comics. Scratch that, let's make her ugly. Show everyone that it's not all about the outside, it's the inside that matters. It'll add depth to Peter's overall character.

He had the right idea? Do you mind explaining to me why he cut her out of the movie?

But here's the thing Joe, her being a 10/10 is subjective...that's the point of all of this. I've already said I don't think Emma Stone is all that never did but that doesn't change the fact that she's great in her role and is a good actress. Plenty on this board think she's a knockout, I don't. Beauty is subjective, good acting isn't. And it's not like the girl isn't attractive or like they cast some dog in the role, she's a pretty girl that got dumped on because of some unattractive pics taken of her on set, which is unfair.

And she was cut because it didn't fit the story which is one reason I was wondering she was going to be introduced in this movie anyway becasue if you're trying to sell me on how much Peter loves Gwen and invest in their relationship, that next love interest shouldn't make an appearance yet, at least to me, that's how I feel. I'll buy that and not go the cynical route that movie execs, adults mind you, would cut a girl becasue of what guys on message boards said about her looks and Marc even said he didn't even pay attention to it and that you can't pay attention to something like that.

 

[Oscorp]

I think the tone in this thread is darker than The Dark Knight

 

[Vid Electricz]

You're right. Let's cast a below average looking girl to play Peter's main love interest even though she's a total babe in the comics. Scratch that, let's make her ugly. Show everyone that it's not all about the outside, it's the inside that matters. It'll add depth to Peter's overall character.

This is a false dichotomy. She must either look like a supermodel or she must be "ugly"? No one has ever suggested this.

If you feel that the actress cast for the part is "below average looking" and that she can't possibly compare to the "total babe" from the cartoon drawings, then this is an issue of your own unrealstic expectations.

You still haven't answered my previous question as to what valuable/interesting character and story material would be mined from Mary Jane being-as you suggested-"sexy" (aside from pandering fan service).

He had the right idea? Do you mind explaining to me why he cut her out of the movie?

Apparently because they wanted to focus on Peter and Gwen's relationship, limiting any "extraneous" characters that might seem to infringe on that. Do you know something we don't?

 

[TheWallCrawler]

The 616 MJ argument mostly came from Webb's portrayal of Gwen. Yes he added certain elements of Ultimate MJ to Gwen, and added his own ideas to the character, but her characterization is predominantly 616.

I've mostly read Spidey comics that take place after Gwen's death, so I know a lot more about MJ and quite honestly nothing about Gwen. What is she like in the 616 comics?

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I think the tone in this thread is darker than The Dark Knight

I maybe the only one but I wouldn't necessary call TDK dark. Out of all the Nolan Batman films I would say it's the most vibrant one. Ok I don't know if "vibrant" is the right way to describe the movie, I'd say the tone is mostly pretty "pepsi".

no one of you probably understands what I mean, so let me explain: it's like close to mainstream vibrant, but still gritty & serious enough to please the hard core source material fans

 

[Nicko-Ray]

I maybe the only one but I wouldn't necessary call TDK dark. Out of all the Nolan Batman films I would say it's the most vibrant one. Ok I don't know if "vibrant" is the right way to describe the movie, I'd say the tone is mostly pretty "pepsi".

no one of you probably understands what I mean, so let me explain: it's like close to mainstream vibrant, but still gritty & serious enough to please the hard core source material fans

Right. I get ya. I may be the only one but I think Raimi's series is actually darker than Webb's. Raimi established a more "Hershey's" feel to his series and Webb's is kinda like M&M's. I know you won't know what I mean but it's hard to explain. Webb kept his series just the right bright enough.

.....

t: