Homecoming The Zendaya is Mary Jane thread - Part 1

[spideyboy_1111]

And that's the thing about Mary Jane Watson. She is a pop icon with a very iconic image.

You wouldn't think to change Marilyn Monroe's image to some black-haired biker goth chick, or Elvis Presley into a monocled man with a pin-striped suit and a bowler hat. Could you argue that their image isn't what defines them? Sure. But would Elvis really be quite the same character doing these pelvic gyrations on stage looking like a businessman who works in the city? And maybe he wouldn't even do those actions but instead would have some dance routine with an umbrella and briefcase while twirling his mustache.

Bingo.. would Thor be Thor without gold locks? Clark Kent/Superman be superman without the dark hair? Would Tony Stark be the same as a blonde?

character wise sure... but they wouldn't feel the same. None of those would even in the comic accurate costumes.. and Mj doesn't even have that.. her trademark is her hair and eyes.

 

[X Knight]

that's just it.. he described that's 616 mj's characteristics.. he didn't necessarily say that's how Z's actually going to be in the film


I'm not super keen on Z anyway.. i don't care for her acting nor line delivery based on the disney shows i've seen her in. But she's got great beauty.. so at the very least i'm hoping they're just trolling us hard.. and The wardrobe and hair is just redherrings ... we've not actually seen footage of them on set.. just walking from trailers to the Set "in costume"

so part of me hopes they're really changing her wardrobe, and giving her a red wig while on set.. (at the very least) and Z's remarks were just further red-herrings. playing up the breakfast club angle.

I wondered that, too. that maybe she looked like that in the set pics "on purpose" to throw people off. kind of like how they make the hero where a long coat or something to hide the costume cuz they don't want to show the costume yet.

but then, people who have seen the CC footage have said she looks pretty much like she does in the set pics.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I wondered that, too. that maybe she looked like that in the set pics "on purpose" to throw people off. kind of like how they make the hero where a long coat or something to hide the costume cuz they don't want to show the costume yet.

but then, people who have seen the CC footage have said she looks pretty much like she does in the set pics.

I can dream that was to throw us all off too right?

PS Marvel.. PLEASE TO GOD TO NOT MAKE HER AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST LIKE THE CARTOON SEEMS TO HAVE DONE TO HER...

MJ is not a poormans Lois Lane.

 

[JOE]

Bingo.. would Thor be Thor without gold locks? Clark Kent/Superman be superman without the dark hair? Would Tony Stark be the same as a blonde?

character wise sure... but they wouldn't feel the same. None of those would even in the comic accurate costumes.. and Mj doesn't even have that.. her trademark is her hair and eyes.

If a black woman Kirsten's age at the time had played MJ in Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy would you have liked the character any less?

I personally hated the character because of the writing and how she was always a damsel in distress... Not to mention super whiny. If this MJ's character is superior do you think people are going to care if she's black, or half black, or whatever Zendaya is. It's such a stupid and pointless argument considering Marvel doesn't need anyone's approval to do what they're doing. They're going full force with it and people will either learn to accept it or lose sleep every night.

 

[sl500jazz]

And that's the thing about Mary Jane Watson. She is a pop icon with a very iconic image.

You wouldn't think to change Marilyn Monroe's image to some black-haired biker goth chick, or Elvis Presley into a monocled man with a pin-striped suit and a bowler hat. Could you argue that their image isn't what defines them? Sure. But would Elvis really be quite the same character doing these pelvic gyrations on stage looking like a businessman who works in the city? And maybe he wouldn't even do those actions but instead would have some dance routine with an umbrella and briefcase while twirling his mustache.

That's a strange comparison. Marilyn and Elvis were real people. MJ is a fictional character.

that's just it.. he described that's 616 mj's characteristics.. he didn't necessarily say that's how Z's actually going to be in the film


I'm not super keen on Z anyway.. i don't care for her acting nor line delivery based on the disney shows i've seen her in. But she's got great beauty.. so at the very least i'm hoping they're just trolling us hard.. and The wardrobe and hair is just redherrings ... we've not actually seen footage of them on set.. just walking from trailers to the Set "in costume"

so part of me hopes they're really changing her wardrobe, and giving her a red wig while on set.. (at the very least) and Z's remarks were just further red-herrings. playing up the breakfast club angle.

I'm hoping some of it is misdirection too.

 

[X Knight]

Speaking of Sandy from Grease, imagine if there were a remake of the film version, or a new stage version (or even the recent live version with Julianne Hough) and they made Sandy the outgoing alpha female party girl whom most of the guys pine after, and started off with the leather pants and sexy bold lipstick. And imagine if we later discover by the end of the film there's more to her than this image. That wouldn't be Sandy anymore, even if she looked the same. If Sandy were more like MJ from the start, you know whom she would be? Betty Rizzo.

Sure, a new version of Grease could try to do things differently to what has gone before, but their character would be unrecognisable now. And that wouldn't be the arc that people would want to see for Sandy, even if at the end of the musical/ film she ends up looking like the Sandy we all typically know from the start of the musical.

So imposing Sandy's actual arc onto MJ is also changing MJ into a different character. Just because she has the initials MJ (which might not even stand for Mary Jane) doesn't make her essentially that same character. After all, Michael Jackson had the initials MJ, and he was not Miss Watson from Spider-Man.



This is what I've been saying before. People argue that it doesn't matter what her appearance is like as long as her personality is right, and then move the goal posts to say it doesn't matter what her personality is like, doesn't matter that she has a different character arc, doesn't matter that her name isn't even Mary Jane etc as long as she has something else because none of these things define her.

But if she didn't even have the initials MJ in the end, but something completely different, then she could be anyone. Any other love interest can have good chemistry with Peter, so why still call her MJ when there's nothing much left of her?

In that case we could argue that we did in fact get MJ in the ASM films, because Emma Stone had good chemistry with Andrew Garfield, despite her name not being MJ, because those initials don't define the character.

And that's the thing about Mary Jane Watson. She is a pop icon with a very iconic image.

You wouldn't think to change Marilyn Monroe's image to some black-haired biker goth chick, or Elvis Presley into a monocled man with a pin-striped suit and a bowler hat. Could you argue that their image isn't what defines them? Sure. But would Elvis really be quite the same character doing these pelvic gyrations on stage looking like a businessman who works in the city? And maybe he wouldn't even do those actions but instead would have some dance routine with an umbrella and briefcase while twirling his mustache.

Bingo.. would Thor be Thor without gold locks? Clark Kent/Superman be superman without the dark hair? Would Tony Stark be the same as a blonde?

character wise sure... but they wouldn't feel the same. None of those would even in the comic accurate costumes.. and Mj doesn't even have that.. her trademark is her hair and eyes.

exactly!

it would be like if they cast RDJ ( a great actor ) as Tony Stark.

then we started seeing the 1st set pics. And RDJ as Tony looked nothing like how Stark is supposed to look ( suit, mustache, etc. ).

instead, Stark looks like a nerdy weapons engineer with a long coat, no mustache, and wild, unkempt frazzled hair.

We'd all look at that and go "WTF!! He looks nothing like Tony Stark!"

And then we started reading descriptions about his character ( like from RDJ himself ) that went "shy reclusive inventor who's awkward around people (especially girls) and who's a pacifist developing non-lethal weapons for the battlefield."

Again, we'd read that description and go "WTF!! That sound nothing like Tony Stark!"

oh sure, after Stark survives his ordeal and becomes Iron Man, he starts gaining confidence and changes his appearance to reflect that. he cuts his hair short, grows out a mustache, starts wearing suits. And he starts becoming an arrogant playboy type ladies man who likes to drink.

So, by the end of the film, he looks and acts like "classic" Stark.

but, would that journey, that experience really be the same?

No, cuz it would feel like watching an entirely different character for most of the film.

 

[X Knight]

I can dream that was to throw us all off too right?

PS Marvel.. PLEASE TO GOD TO NOT MAKE HER AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST LIKE THE CARTOON SEEMS TO HAVE DONE TO HER...

MJ is not a poormans Lois Lane.

what are you going to do when the first teaser/trailer hits......and she looks exactly like the set pics and acts exactly like the description?

 

[X Knight]

If a black woman Kirsten's age at the time had played MJ in Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy would you have liked the character any less?

I personally hated the character because of the writing and how she was always a damsel in distress... Not to mention super whiny. If this MJ's character is superior do you think people are going to care if she's black, or half black, or whatever Zendaya is. It's such a stupid and pointless argument considering Marvel doesn't need anyone's approval to do what they're doing. They're going full force with it and people will either learn to accept it or lose sleep every night.

again. you keep bringing race into this.

we are talking about changes to the actual character.

 

[Dark Raven]

If a black woman Kirsten's age at the time had played MJ in Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy would you have liked the character any less?

I personally hated the character because of the writing and how she was always a damsel in distress... Not to mention super whiny. If this MJ's character is superior do you think people are going to care if she's black, or half black, or whatever Zendaya is. It's such a stupid and pointless argument considering Marvel doesn't need anyone's approval to do what they're doing. They're going full force with it and people will either learn to accept it or lose sleep every night.

But the point is that if they're going to change her appearance, then at least keep the character's personality the same so that she is recognisable. And even keep the character's name the same rather than her going by Michelle but MJ is only either a nickname or her initials taken from Michelle J.

As I mentioned with Grease before, if you change Sandy's personality in addition to her appearance, then is she still Sandy? In the recent Grease live broadcast earlier this year in which Julianne Hough played Sandy, could Vanessa Hudgens have played the part instead? Sure. She could easily have, and been an Asian Sandy, and played it similar to her character in HSM. But if she played it as the Alpha female who doesn't care about her virginity and drinks and smokes, then isn't she just Betty Rizzo, whom Vanessa did actually play? So why not just make her Betty Rizzo instead of still wanting her to be Sandy who goes through an arc from alpha female to become the demure and shy Sandy we all know?

With MJ, if you change her appearance, personality, name etc, then why still insist on her being that character? Why not just make her a different character - either an existing one that fits those characteristics or an original one?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

If a black woman Kirsten's age at the time had played MJ in Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy would you have liked the character any less?

I personally hated the character because of the writing and how she was always a damsel in distress... Not to mention super whiny. If this MJ's character is superior do you think people are going to care if she's black, or half black, or whatever Zendaya is. It's such a stupid and pointless argument considering Marvel doesn't need anyone's approval to do what they're doing. They're going full force with it and people will either learn to accept it or lose sleep every night.

I honestly don't want a non white actor/actress playing Iconic white roles in comics.. they're a visual medium... people freak out when bugs bunny got a redesign.. this really isn't any different. secondary and tertiary characters are much easier to change... the Perry Whites, the Ben Urich's, the Ancient Ones, the Hemidal's.... even the Valkeries. They arn't major characters.. with major fanbases or major popculture icons... (perry kinda is but still, he doesn't have an iconic look, he has an iconic position). and I'm a big proponent against White Washing as well.. I think being progressive is not taking away from one race/culture but actually creating new characters or bringing the established minority ones to the for-front. There's alot of great characters out there.. things don't need "swapped"

Raimi's MJ was terribly written, acted, and designed.. (i mean who let Kirsten walk around with no braw?) But I don't honestly give a rats behind if this version is better than kirstens.. or what marvel thinks is best... I want the character who been a big impact on my life to be depicted like i know her.. and im certainly allowed to complain about it if she's not... so buckle-up, if you don't like it you're in for a bumpy ride for the next year.

 

[Eddie Dean]

JAMES BOND ISNT BLONDE!!! DaNIEL CRAIG SUCKS!!!

 

[spideyboy_1111]

That's a strange comparison. Marilyn and Elvis were real people. MJ is a fictional character.



I'm hoping some of it is misdirection too.

I honestly don't think real or fiction matters.. all are pop culture icons.. and all are ingrained in american (and world) history... Mj isn't any different... I mean.. Kermit the Frog is part of that group too.. is it still Kermit if they turn him into a brown toad?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

what are you going to do when the first teaser/trailer hits......and she looks exactly like the set pics and acts exactly like the description?

ill complain like i am now.. but even more so and then ill probably boycott the film.. or wait till its on video .. i wont put in an effort to see it.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

But the point is that if they're going to change her appearance, then at least keep the character's personality the same so that she is recognisable. And even keep the character's name the same rather than her going by Michelle but MJ is only either a nickname or her initials taken from Michelle J.

As I mentioned with Grease before, if you change Sandy's personality in addition to her appearance, then is she still Sandy? In the recent Grease live broadcast earlier this year in which Julianne Hough played Sandy, could Vanessa Hudgens have played the part instead? Sure. She could easily have, and been an Asian Sandy, and played it similar to her character in HSM. But if she played it as the Alpha female who doesn't care about her virginity and drinks and smokes, then isn't she just Betty Rizzo, whom Vanessa did actually play? So why not just make her Betty Rizzo instead of still wanting her to be Sandy who goes through an arc from alpha female to become the demure and shy Sandy we all know?

With MJ, if you change her appearance, personality, name etc, then why still insist on her being that character? Why not just make her a different character - either an existing one that fits those characteristics or an original one?

 

[KalvinEllis]

JAMES BOND ISNT BLONDE!!! DaNIEL CRAIG SUCKS!!!

Does Craig's Bond act like Austin Powers?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

JAMES BOND ISNT BLONDE!!! DaNIEL CRAIG SUCKS!!!

he's a literary character to be fair.. and one who's hair color was not important to the books.. there's a difference. If he was a comic book first .. a visual medium first... sure. But just because something is first depicted on film a certain way doesn't mean it can't be changed...

Hermione is a great example... Film dictates she's white, the book does not.. the play made her black. ... The Weasley's however were written with Red hair as an identifying trait.. so if they had anything but Red Hair.. that would be really off-putting.

if it's just in a book, you don't have pictures, you can only use words and your own imagination to paint a picture of what these characters actually look like.

 

[X Knight]

But the point is that if they're going to change her appearance, then at least keep the character's personality the same so that she is recognisable. And even keep the character's name the same rather than her going by Michelle but MJ is only either a nickname or her initials taken from Michelle J.

As I mentioned with Grease before, if you change Sandy's personality in addition to her appearance, then is she still Sandy? In the recent Grease live broadcast earlier this year in which Julianne Hough played Sandy, could Vanessa Hudgens have played the part instead? Sure. She could easily have, and been an Asian Sandy, and played it similar to her character in HSM. But if she played it as the Alpha female who doesn't care about her virginity and drinks and smokes, then isn't she just Betty Rizzo, whom Vanessa did actually play? So why not just make her Betty Rizzo instead of still wanting her to be Sandy who goes through an arc from alpha female to become the demure and shy Sandy we all know?

With MJ, if you change her appearance, personality, name etc, then why still insist on her being that character? Why not just make her a different character - either an existing one that fits those characteristics or an original one?

why have an actress play a character named Betty "Brandt" but make her look and act like another character ( blonde and cliquish/snobbish like Sally Avril )? If she looks and acts like Sally, why not just call her Sally?

why have another actress play a character named "Sally" when that character looks and acts nothing like Sally? Why not just call her the other character?

 

[Dark Raven]

I honestly don't think real or fiction matters.. all are pop culture icons.. and all are ingrained in american (and world) history... Mj isn't any different... I mean.. Kermit the Frog is part of that group too.. is it still Kermit if they turn him into a brown toad?

If Kermit were a brown toad, and it isn't his green appearance with bulging eyes that partly defines him, then Jim Henson's estate or the current creators behind the Muppets won't mind me infringing on their trademark right now and using a green frog with bulging eyes for my own use.

And if Mary Jane Watson doesn't look typically like this:

then Marvel won't mind me using that trademarked image and likeness for one of my own projects, because that doesn't define her at all.

But trademarks do exist in real life, and they are strongly based on their visual image if it is an image-related trademark. Do people not think Marvel didn't register trademarks for characters like a green Hulk or a very particular red and blue costume for Spider-Man? They would've registered multiple trademarks for the names, visual appearance etc. If you tried to pass it off as your own or use it without authority you'd get a lawsuit slapped down on you immediately.

Now in court, do you think someone's lawyer could argue that Mary Jane's classic appearance doesn't define her at all, and it's only the character's personality that matters in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit for trademark infringement? Well, good luck with that.

 

[Chesterfield]

When a 37 year old 5ft 10 actor with blond hair was cast as James Bond, arguably the biggest cinematic icon in history; fans, the public and the media went nuts. When the film came out, media outlets published official apologies and the man was hailed as the best Bond ever or second to Connery.

Craig's casting ultimately threw the book at such things as hair colour. Why? James Bond isn't real, neither is Superman, Lois Lane or whichever fictional character people want to use to substantiate their opinions. Making comparisons to Elvis or Marilyn is just silly because they were real people!

Is MJ'S hair iconic? Of course it is. Is her hair important? Not in the slightest. I say this as someone who's been reading spider-man comics for 27 years and as much as fans would love to have a lot of things translated from the comics to film as they are, it's not always going to happen and uts not always necessary. MJ first and foremost is a love interest and love interests, especially in film can be interpreted and realised in different ways. The ultimate key is to keep the character and the romance dynamic interesting.

If this film is going for the ugly duckling to Swan route then so be it, just so long as it's good. The cartoons that some people here have cited as having enjoyed watched or introduced them to the characters are in some cases vastly different to the source material. The same applies with the films.

If people aren't happy with the artistic changes made, fair enough but last time I checked the world isn't ending, at least not today anyway but like too few people here, I'll wait for trailers and the film itself for actual context to see if the changes were/are a good call or not.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

If Kermit were a brown toad, and it isn't his green appearance with bulging eyes that partly defines him, then Jim Henson's estate or the current creators behind the Muppets won't mind me infringing on their trademark right now and using a green frog with bulging eyes for my own use.

And if Mary Jane Watson doesn't look typically like this:

then Marvel won't mind me using that trademarked image and likeness for one of my own projects, because that doesn't define her at all.

But trademarks do exist in real life, and they are strongly based on their visual image if it is an image-related trademark. Do people not think Marvel didn't register trademarks for characters like a green Hulk or a very particular red and blue costume for Spider-Man? They would've registered multiple trademarks for the names, visual appearance etc. If you tried to pass it off as your own or use it without authority you'd get a lawsuit slapped down on you immediately.

Now in court, do you think someone's lawyer could argue that Mary Jane's classic appearance doesn't define her at all, and it's only the character's personality that matters? Well, good luck with that.

you are on fire!

 

[spideyboy_1111]

When a 37 year old 5ft 10 actor with blond hair was cast as James Bond, arguably the biggest cinematic icon in history; fans, the public and the media went nuts. When the film came out, media outlets published official apologies and the man was hailed as the best Bond ever or second to Connery.

Craig's casting ultimately threw the book at such things as hair colour. Why? James Bond isn't real, neither is Superman, Lois Lane or whichever fictional character people want to use to substantiate their opinions. Making comparisons to Elvis or Marilyn is just silly because they were really people.

Is MJ'S hair iconic? Of course it is. Is her hair important? Not in the slightest. I say this as someone who's been reading spider-man comics for 27 years and as much as fans would love to have a lot of things translated from the comics to film as they are, it's not always going to happen and uts not always necessary. MJ first and foremost is a love interest and love interests, especially in film can be interpreted and realised in different ways. The ultimate key is to keep the character and the romance dynamic interesting.

If this film is going for the ugly duckling to Swan route then so be it, just so long as it's good. The cartoons that some people here have cited as having enjoyed watched or introduced them to the characters are in some cases vastly different to the source material. The same applies with the films.

If people aren't happy with the artistic changes made, fair enough but last time I checked the world isn't ending, at least not today anyway but like too few people here, I'll wait for trailers and the film itself for actual context to see if the changes were/are a good call or not.

blech..

sorry you lost me at "just a love interest" that's basically like saying spider-man is "just a superhero" if one thinks Mj is "just a love interest" do they think the same about Lois Lane? Both characters are above and beyond just "love interests" and anyone who thinks that either doesn't full get the weight of the character or are really all that attached to her.

Why someone with no fondness or attachment gets to dictate to those who do.. and are upset by it what is acceptable or not, or what is ok to complain about or not.. is not right at all... why alienate a fanbase when i guarantee everyone fine with this would be just as fine with a comic accurate MJ....

 

[X Knight]

When a 37 year old 5ft 10 actor with blond hair was cast as James Bond, arguably the biggest cinematic icon in history; fans, the public and the media went nuts. When the film came out, media outlets published official apologies and the man was hailed as the best Bond ever or second to Connery.

Craig's casting ultimately threw the book at such things as hair colour. Why? James Bond isn't real, neither is Superman, Lois Lane or whichever fictional character people want to use to substantiate their opinions. Making comparisons to Elvis or Marilyn is just silly because they were really people.

Is MJ'S hair iconic? Of course it is. Is her hair important? Not in the slightest. I say this as someone who's been reading spider-man comics for 27 years and as much as fans would love to have a lot of things translated from the comics to film as they are, it's not always going to happen and uts not always necessary. MJ first and foremost is a love interest and love interests, especially in film can be interpreted and realised in different ways. The ultimate key is to keep the character and the romance dynamic interesting.

If this film is going for the ugly duckling to Swan route then so be it, just so long as it's good. The cartoons that some people here have cited as having enjoyed watched or introduced them to the characters are in some cases vastly different to the source material. The same applies with the films.

If people aren't happy with the artistic changes made, fair enough but last time I checked the world isn't ending, at least not today anyway but like too few people here, I'll wait for trailers and the film itself for actual context to see if the changes were/are a good call or not.

sure, Craig's Bond changed the look, but did his Bond's character or personality traits change?

I'm not big on Bond, but from what I could tell, his Bond acted and behaved like how Bond traditionally does. or, at least there weren't any major deviations.

He was still a spy. He likes his drinks and his women.

Craig's Bond wasn't changed into some chaste pacifist who avoided violence, women, and drink.

Nor was he some comedic spy like Austin Powers.

 

[sl500jazz]

I honestly don't think real or fiction matters.. all are pop culture icons.. and all are ingrained in american (and world) history... Mj isn't any different... I mean.. Kermit the Frog is part of that group too.. is it still Kermit if they turn him into a brown toad?

Maybe Kermit is a better comparison (I'm not sure MJ's iconography compares to his), but even then, Kermit's visual could be redesigned if the Muppets were being revamped. You can't redesign Marilyn and Elvis

 

[marijuanawatson]

Id argue if the only thing about MJ that is left intact is her love interest aspect and the fact she goes by "MJ" and the only thing you care about is them having good chemistry... and that's all that matters regardless of anything else.. then yeah... i don't think you care all that much about Mary Jane Watson as a character.. and think "as long as she has good chemistry" like any random love interest.

Love interests in general all need good chemistry.. but she's playing Mary Jane.. so she needs to you know... act the part, and actually become the character.. otherwise she's just MJ in name only.. and there's no reason she couldn't of been Deb Whitman or Carlie Cooper for that matter.

You get me! Most only care about MJ as a love interest and someone to jack off to rather than her own character.

 

[sl500jazz]

I love MJ, but if you showed this to anyone who doesn't read comics, they probably wouldn't be able to identify who this is.