Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' started by Thread Manager, Aug 19, 2016.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]518151[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]517531[/split]
Yeah, that post was ****ed up.
That seems like a pretty unrealistic mindset when you're going into a huge, multi-million dollar, four-quadrant blockbuster going on it's third reboot in 15 years. You're basically setting yourself up for disappointment. Changes are inevitable.
Acting alone doesn't win me over man.. get that through your head..
its a 1 2 punch to me.. you need the acting chops (which i don't believe Z has anyway) and the look.. and she's scoring an F in set pics thus far.. and doesn't look a bit like MJ at all...
so seriously, you're not going to convince me otherwise and as many have stated the set pics and description of the character is a valid red flag and concern for MJ Fans who don't want this sort of interpretation.
THIS IS NOT MY FIRST RODEO.. i get tired of that darn arrogant answer.. ive been on these boards for 15 years now.. i can spot red flags when i see them..
except this is only the second time MJ has ever been in live action.. and the comic adaptation would have been a fantastic change of pace compared to Kirstens. Ironically Peter has been done 3 times.. and little has changed about him
You're right, Kirsten while she did look like MJ in the first movie, did not really act like comic book MJ. Still waiting to see that.
we've had very few reports on her character and nothing thus far has been anything remotely like MJ... so how you think you can find anything MJ about her character.. i have no clue.. and i'd love to see how you struggle and force to find one..
Zendaya has alot in common with her... but the character she's playing very clearly does not.
It'll be great for people who have more investment too, e.g. people who don't gloss over the differences between Liz Allen and Mary Jane. Your issue with the film doesn't come purely out of love for the characters, because there's plenty of people who love these characters who are very much looking forward to it.
Yep, personally when I sit back and think about it, I'm not surprised that they are making a lot of changes because it's the 2rd reboot in such a short amount of time.
Okay? I'm sure there was a less aggressive way of putting that, but whatever lol
I highly doubt the general audience would view a comic accurate MJ as a far cry from either love interest we've seen thus far.
I'd disagree with "little has changed", but he's the main character. It seem's obvious that he's going to remain true to what fans have loved for years.
MJ is just one part of the mythos and frankly we haven't seen anything to say that Zendaya won't be the character you know and love. It seems that they are taking a different path to get there, but you realize we're (hopefully) going to be seeing these characters and growing with them over the years, right?
I could be wrong, but I believe they're trying to do the iconic MJ moment, where she shows up on Peter's doorstep and says "Face it Tiger, You've hit the Jackpot" and his jaw, and the audience's jaw, drops.
There's three really important aspects to this scene.
1) She is interested in Peter.
2) Peter is surprised that she is attractive.
3) The audience is invested in the MJ character
Now in the original comics this is done via a blind date and constant mention. This is not an angle that builds interest for a modern audience very well. We're much more interested in who we say than some rando who doesn't even bother to show up for a whole movie. So, the best way to accomplish this moment is for her to have a relationship with Peter in which she does not appear likely to give him that moment even as she builds towards it.
BUT, you say, MJ is all about being this model/actress/fashionista/alpha female, and Zendaya's character isn't that based on what we've seen, and I agree, but if we're going by all the leaks, including the fact that Zendaya looks like Zendaya, then that means that MJ is analogous to the Basket Case of the Breakfast Club, which actually DOES fit with her background of having an abusive family. That means she transforms, which means... this is the story of her becoming the MJ that you believe in.
Now, they COULD have just made her that from the beginning, but that means we aren't invested in the "Jackpot" moment, because it happens before our interest in MJ is built up. This means she's just random hot girl who's interest in a random geek guy for no apparent reason, or for some superficial reason. This prevents the audience from being invested in her. This makes her a poorly adapted character, since they would have failed to capture why people liked her in the original story, just given her the same form and hoped that people would like her for the same reasons, even though those reasons don't exist now.
Now... if you can come up with a better way for people who are not already MJ fans to become MJ fans, go for it, but until then, they're on track to do the best MJ I can think of.
i kinda feels like they are making zendaya frumpy looking from hair,clothes,personality wise so she can look to be attainable for someone like tom holland
This is something I've actually being pondering for awhile. As a 29 year old who's been a fan since 10, is the modern era of comics or comic movies passing me by? Are these adaptations just not meant for me anymore since when I was growing up, none of that vitriol about how a character should or should not look was happening? I mean I remember going to forums and seeing some people bicker about Dunst's casting 15-16 years ago, but today when people disagree about a casting choice, they just start calling each other racists or bigots and bring up white privilege, this isn't just for you, you don't like sharing your toys, equal representation this, forced diversity that, regressive left this, right wing bigotry that, Trump supporter this... I'm sick to death of hearing all of this garbage all the time because of fictional characters. Oh, Jeremy Renner called Black Widow a sl*t, he has to apologize! Am I just getting too old for this ****. lol Sorry for the rambling.
....All I want is a good movie regardless of actor. To skip out on a movie simply because of the cast before you have any visual or physical proof it'll be bad such as script leaks or a trailer. It's....it's redundant.I'm sorry but thats like loving cake then, skipping out on a cake party because one of the cakes out of all the other flavors you love is lemon. :/
Marvel has a good track record, I see no reason not to give this film a chance unless you don't like Spider-Man or comic book movies in general.
Zendaya is pretty, spunky,sharp, funny, and vunerable. She's basically MJ to me so I have zero problem with the casting nor zero problem defending it, assuming she really is MJ .
Dr. Cosmic is prescribing common sense here.
Moreover, it's also important to remember that Jon Watts has said from early on that this film was also going to draw influence from Ultimate Spider-Man and Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane.
I don't get why everyone here is acting like they've seen the movie and know exactly how MJ will be portrayed....
Also, I'm pretty bummed that with all this diversity, there's no sign of the Robertsons...
IMDB changed Zendaya's character's name to Mary Jane Watson. I know it's not anymore confirmation, but they did have Tony as Flash before anyone else.
IMDB is about as reliable a source as the National Enquirer.
Sorry, but for me personally, I would feel less invested in the jackpot moment if we have to sit through her becoming MJ and going through a makeover.
As I've said in the previous thread, just because there is the basket case type from the Breakfast Club doesn't mean that Watts has to fit her into that and that we have to see her become something else.
I'd rather see her straight away as the girl who is way out of Peter's league and who might seem flightly or superficial to start with, but we only later discover she has more substance. I don't want to see that her MJ persona and appearance are purely a facade. I want her MJ persona and look to be her, but that there's simply more to her than being a pretty face.
And as far as hitting the jackpot, I see it as more of a super confident sense of assurance on her own part that someone like Peter might have even scored a date with someone so out of his league. That's how I interpreted the classic scene. Not that she was chasing after Peter but when he finally noticed her he realised he had a jackpot all along.
I don't want a "She's All That" type arc. I'd rather she were more like Cordelia Chase. I would like it even that she had agreed (perhaps even reluctantly) to go on a date with Peter or was paired up with him for the Homecoming dance, and he wasn't sure if he wanted her because she was so out of his league, but she said rather flippantly that he's hit the jackpot. And then, after spending time with him, she realises that HE has more to him than just being an awkward nerdy type and decides to give him more of her time because he makes her laugh. And as he spends time with her he sees that she's more than just superficial as he had originally judged her to be.
What good are they without The Bugle?