Homecoming The Zendaya is Mary Jane thread - Part 1

[X Knight]

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

that is true. these are fictional characters.

but if they changed Kermit's look ( and even his personality ) so much, would he even feel like Kermit anymore?

 

[marijuanawatson]

I found this post on another site. I honestly wish I could take credit for it, since it mirrors my own thoughts on the matter, however I am nowhere near as eloquent when making posts. Thus, here you go...

This is what I've basically have been trying to point out to people. Took the words right out of my mouth. It's plain sexism to me, this is where these MJ character changes are coming from. Apparently, we can't have a love interest who models and acts and likes makeup because it's too 'girly' and she's 'shallow' and different from Peter. Having a feminist female love interest who is her own person is too much and far too hard for Marvel it seems!

 

[X Knight]

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.

maybe. maybe not.

but they at least might have general awareness of MJ being Spider-Man's "redheaded girlfriend." if nothing else just from exposure to the Raimi films.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

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

sure you can. Elvis redesigned himself multiple times.. and there's plenty of pop art of Marilyn that redesigned her... even giving her tattoos...

Hell even Marilyn redesigned herself from Norma Jean...

Her classic "7 year itch" and "Gentleman Prefer Blonds" are iconic looks.. but that's something hollywood made.. not norma jean. Those looks are iconic ... not Marilyn in her every day life...

 

[Chesterfield]

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.

Then learn to read. I said she is first and foremost a love interest, not that that is all she is.

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....

If you could read what I wrote, I said many of the concerns people have are fair. If you want you can cry till the cows come home, it's upto you but I for one do have a fondness for the character but I also know and understand how film making and adaptations work. Marvel have already made changes and taken major liberties more significant than changing attributes of MJ. Furthermore, this isn't about or comes anywhere close to alienating tge fanbase, if you want to see what alienating a fanbase looks like go over to the DC boards. Lastly, you can't guarantee anything. Have you seen the script? Has the movie finished it's filming and you've seen it? I take it your answer is no on both accounts, so please, spare us your guarantees until you've seen the finished product like the rest of us. Oh and again, I refer you and others to the Daniel Craig casting as James Bond as a valid precedent.

 

[ItchyWebShooter]

I found this post on another site. I honestly wish I could take credit for it, since it mirrors my own thoughts on the matter, however I am nowhere near as eloquent when making posts. Thus, here you go...

Muy bien! Me gusta.

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

Well, he could be updated, but he wouldn't be brown toad. Idc, just playing devil's advocate on this one lol

 

[X Knight]

Then learn to read. I said she is first and foremost a love interest, not that that is all she is.



If you could read what I wrote, I said many of the concerns people have are fair. If you want you can cry till the cows come home, it's upto you but I for one do have a fondness for the character but I also know and understand how film making and adaptations work. Marvel have already made changes and taken major liberties more significant than changing attributes of MJ. Furthermore, this isn't about or comes anywhere close to alienating tge fanbase, if you want to see what alienating a fanbase looks like go over to the DC boards. Lastly, you can't guarantee anything. Have you seen the script? Has the movie finished it's filming and you've seen it? I take it your answer is no on both accounts, so please, spare us your guarantees until you've seen the finished product like the rest of us. Oh and again, I refer you and others to the Daniel Craig casting as James Bond as a valid precedent.

did you see my post about Craig's Bond?

 

[Dark Raven]

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.

Well I'll just help myself to this image and use it for a new character I'll decide to create then. Marvel will have nothing on me because this doesn't define her at all. It's only her personality that does.

But you can be sure that if there were a film or TV show with a character that had the classic alpha female Mary Jane personality and later showed herself to be much more than a superficial party girl, Marvel wouldn't be able to do much about that. And in fact, we have had someone in fiction like that called Cordelia Chase from Buffy.

On the other hand, if a film or a poster came out with someone who looked just like that image of Mary Jane, you can be sure they'll be on the phone to their lawyers straight away.

So in fact, a character's visual image seems pretty important to Marvel in defining who that character is.

Do you think I could create a new crime drama and have a mob boss look like this, even if he had a completely different personality?

Or even if he weren't a mob boss but just a random character who looked like that, would Marvel be happy with the use of this image that apparently isn't defining the character at all?

 

[Chesterfield]

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...

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Bond like MJ started off as a literary character but his hair was ALWAYS dark and had a coma, which was painstakenly referenced in many of the novels.
As for the movies, from Connery to Brosnan, Bond always had dark hair and was over 6ft tall. Craig came along with his blond hair and 5ft 10 frame and proved none of the aforementioned mattered in the slightest.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

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.

i think more people would be able to guess it than you realized.. especially if you held up this image with it....



Id even argue she's far more recognizable in the sense that someone could figure it out .. quicker than someone could figure out who this is...



now do people who know little to nothing about comics know these things? probably not.. but that doesn't really matter.. considering pop cultural icons very .. millenials seem to not know a whole lot of them post 80s lol

but i have no doubt in my mind if someone said ... "which super hero love interest is this" people would be able to guess Lois Lane and Mary Jane.. easily the 2 most synonymous.

They're the Mickey and Minnie to their Superman and Spider-Man Hell... they shut down Shea Stadium for Peter and Mj's wedding in the 80s...

 

[X Knight]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Bond like MJ started off as a literary character but his hair was ALWAYS dark and had a coma, which was painstakenly referenced in many of the novels.
As for the movies, from Connery to Brosnan, Bond always had dark hair and was over 6ft tall. Craig came along with his blond hair and 5ft 10 frame and proved none of the aforementioned mattered in the slightest.

again, you are talking only about visual changes.

what about changes to the actual character himself?

I'm not that familiar with Bond just what I know from the films and general exposure.

So, I ask again. Did Craig's Bond behave or act dramatically different ( even opposite ) than past Bonds or how Bond has traditionally been portrayed?

When I think of Bond, I think of a spy who's a ladies' man who likes his drink and women. He also has a sense of wit.

Craig's Bond, despite deviating from the traditional visual look, seemed to fit that behavior of Bond.

Craig's Bond wasn't portrayed as a straight edge, chaste pacifist who didn't kill or drink or sleep with women.

Craig's Bond wasn't a comedic spy like Austin Powers.

Craig's Bond wasn't a cowardly, reluctant spy forced into the spotlight.

 

[Chesterfield]

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

Yes, they did. The Craig movies gave us a Bond that was more of a blunt instrument rather than the refined and broader thinking character that he'd been previously portrayed as.

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.

Like you said, you're not big on Bond so you wouldn't be able to identify the character deviations.

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

That goes without saying and is the most basic characterisation to sum up the character. Those attributes will never change.

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

Which is the equivalent of saying, "Superman hasn't been changed so that he was born on Pluto rather than on Krypton."

Nor was he some comedic spy like Austin Powers.

Bond has never been as pastiche like AP but he's had few close moments such as in Diamonds are forever and a good chunk of the Roger Moore era.

 

[harryoscop]

The entire point of this forum is for people to discuss, share opinions whether you agree with them or not. SpiderBoy doesn't have to wait until he's seen the film to give his opinion on the changes they've made to MJ's character in this movie. I can't count on five hands how many times i've seen people say "Wait untlil you've seen the film"

 

[X Knight]

Well I'll just help myself to this image and use it for a new character I'll decide to create then. Marvel will have nothing on me because this doesn't define her at all. It's only her personality that does.

But you can be sure that if there were a film or TV show with a character that had the classic alpha female Mary Jane personality and later showed herself to be much more than a superficial party girl, Marvel wouldn't be able to do much about that. And in fact, we have had someone in fiction like that called Cordelia Chase from Buffy.

On the other hand, if a film or a poster came out with someone who looked just like that image of Mary Jane, you can be sure they'll be on the phone to their lawyers straight away.

So in fact, a character's visual image seems pretty important to Marvel in defining who that character is.

Do you think I could create a new crime drama and have a mob boss look like this, even if he had a completely different personality?

Or even if he weren't a mob boss but just a random character who looked like that, would Marvel be happy with the use of this image that apparently isn't defining the character at all?

that reminds me.

a few year's back, didn't KISS Gene Simmons' son get in trouble for plagiarism because his own comic book looked so similar to Bleach characters?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/incarnate-the-nick-simmons-plagiarism-scandal

 

[sl500jazz]

that is true. these are fictional characters.

but if they changed Kermit's look ( and even his personality ) so much, would he even feel like Kermit anymore?

I suppose that's up to individual. Some are more tolerant of that type of change than others.

maybe. maybe not.

but they at least might have general awareness of MJ being Spider-Man's "redheaded girlfriend." if nothing else just from exposure to the Raimi films.

I agree that most probably know her as Spider-man's reheaded girlfriend. But then whether this is an issue of characterization, race, or simply hair color becomes muddy. The initial argument about iconography focused on very specific criteria as opposed to just "redheaded girlfriend".

sure you can. Elvis redesigned himself multiple times.. and there's plenty of pop art of Marilyn that redesigned her... even giving her tattoos...

Hell even Marilyn redesigned herself from Norma Jean...

Her classic "7 year itch" and "Gentleman Prefer Blonds" are iconic looks.. but that's something hollywood made.. not norma jean. Those looks are iconic ... not Marilyn in her every day life...

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Marilyn and Elvis were real historical figures of their time. History cannot be rewritten. Fictional characters, however, can be.

 

[Chesterfield]

again, you are talking only about visual changes.

Yes and rightfully so because that's what I was adressing.

what about changes to the actual character himself?

I'm not that familiar with Bond just what I know from the films and general exposure.

So, I ask again. Did Craig's Bond behave or act dramatically different ( even opposite ) than past Bonds or how Bond has traditionally been portrayed?

When I think of Bond, I think of a spy who's a ladies' man who likes his drink and women. He also has a sense of wit.

Craig's Bond, despite deviating from the traditional visual look, seemed to fit that behavior of Bond.

Craig's Bond wasn't portrayed as a straight edge, chaste pacifist who didn't kill or drink or sleep with women.

Craig's Bond wasn't a comedic spy like Austin Powers.

Craig's Bond wasn't a cowardly, reluctant spy forced into the spotlight.

See earlier post. You do realise Craig is the 6th actor to play Bond, right? And that Bond's interpretations have varied with each actor, with latter Connery and the majority of Moore taking on a more comedic approach.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Then learn to read. I said she is first and foremost a love interest, not that that is all she is.



If you could read what I wrote, I said many of the concerns people have are fair. If you want you can cry till the cows come home, it's upto you but I for one do have a fondness for the character but I also know and understand how film making and adaptations work. Marvel have already made changes and taken major liberties more significant than changing attributes of MJ. Furthermore, this isn't about or comes anywhere close to alienating tge fanbase, if you want to see what alienating a fanbase looks like go over to the DC boards. Lastly, you can't guarantee anything. Have you seen the script? Has the movie finished it's filming and you've seen it? I take it your answer is no on both accounts, so please, spare us your guarantees until you've seen the finished product like the rest of us. Oh and again, I refer you and others to the Daniel Craig casting as James Bond as a valid precedent.

I read quite clearly... and "first and foremost" comes off as "that's what matters most" and that's not the case at all.. its a positional slot the character fills and not the substance that fills it.

MJ so far will be the first "MAJOR" change to a "MAJOR" character in the books... even May's change isn't compared to this.. and one kids themselves if they think Mandarin is above MJ in iconography.

and ive explained myself enough on this.. but i care not for the finished product if it looks remotely anything like this... which is my point.. and far enough reason for me to complain. and oh yet again.. i wasn't one of those complainers over criag.. i can differentiate literary mediums vers visual as i already explained and quite well if i may add..

this isn't even a ledger/joker comparison.. (whom i also was on board with).

 

[Chesterfield]

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Marilyn and Elvis were real historical figures of their time. History cannot be rewritten. Fictional characters, however, can be.

And that right there is what so many fans can't wrap their heads around.

 

[Dark Raven]

The entire point of this forum is for people to discuss, share opinions whether you agree with them or not. SpiderBoy doesn't have to wait until he's seen the film to give his opinion on the changes they've made to MJ's character in this movie. I can't count on five hands how many times i've seen people say "Wait untlil you've seen the film"

This.

And that's exactly what happened with FFINO. People kept saying "wait until you see the trailer, wait until you see the set photos, wait until you see the movie, wait until the sequel" etc.

Well, if that happened with that movie and people couldn't discuss the changes they didn't like beforehand, well once the movie came out all of FFINO's staunch defenders suddenly disappeared and went into hiding, not wanting to hear anything about how they were wrong.

 

[X Knight]

Yes, they did. The Craig movies gave us a Bond that was more of a blunt instrument rather than the refined and broader thinking character that he'd been previously portrayed as.



Like you said, you're not big on Bond so you wouldn't be able to identify the character deviations.



That goes without saying and is the most basic characterisation to sum up the character. Those attributes will never change.

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

Which is the equivalent of saying, "Superman hasn't been changed so that he was born on Pluto rather than on Krypton."



Bond has never been as pastiche like AP but he's had few close moments such as in Diamonds are forever and a good chunk of the Roger Moore era.

thank you.

then I stand corrected then. Craig's Bond did deviate from traditional Bond both in terms of looks and behavior.

but that also makes the point that I and others here have said.

because I'm not that big into Bond, I'm less likely to notice the deviations as you said, and thus, I'm less bothered by the changes.

conversely, because I AM way more familiar with Spider-Man and his characters, like MJ, I WILL be more bothered by changes and deviations, especially major ones like what they seem to be doing to not only MJ but the rest of the HS cast in Homecoming.

I'm more bothered because I'm more familiar and care more about these characters.

If I had grown up reading all the Bond novels, and knew all the Bond films by heart, and knew what Bond was supposed to look like and how he was supposed to act, then you know what? I very well could be on these boards complaining about Craig's casting, saying he looks and acts nothing like how Bond is supposed to.

indeed, my initial reaction Craig's casting as Bond was that he wasn't handsome looking enough, since my exposure to Bond had primarily through Brosnan's Bond.

 

[sl500jazz]

Well, he could be updated, but he wouldn't be brown toad. Idc, just playing devil's advocate on this one lol

Theoretically, they could lol. I doubt they would though because it would serve no purpose, whereas blending different versions of MJ and/or casting a biracial actress as the chracter does.

i think more people would be able to guess it than you realized.. especially if you held up this image with it....



Id even argue she's far more recognizable in the sense that someone could figure it out .. quicker than someone could figure out who this is...



now do people who know little to nothing about comics know these things? probably not.. but that doesn't really matter.. considering pop cultural icons very .. millenials seem to not know a whole lot of them post 80s lol

but i have no doubt in my mind if someone said ... "which super hero love interest is this" people would be able to guess Lois Lane and Mary Jane.. easily the 2 most synonymous.

They're the Mickey and Minnie to their Superman and Spider-Man Hell... they shut down Shea Stadium for Peter and Mj's wedding in the 80s...

That image is mostly iconic in comic book circles. However, I agree that if you aided them by saying "superhero love interest", they might figure it out.

 

[marijuanawatson]

To those who seem to be fine with the ugly duckling to bombshell cliche:

IMO, this arc is usually applied only to female characters and I find it incredibly sexist. I also find it outdated and find it to be an overused cliche, one that certainly does not fit in 2016. Especially when you're pandering to the teen audience. It's also an arc that does not fit the character Mary Jane Here's why.
The idea that teens, especially teen girls, have to change who they are to be liked and accepted by society, men, family, whatever is such a wrong message to send to teens and anyone really. What's wrong with who you are? Why can't they love themselves and why can't we love them? Why do they have to change? There was nothing wrong with the way Laney and Allison looked in She's All That and in Breakfast Club. Even if there was, who cares? They got makeovers to be accepted, popular and get the cool hot guy. Similar to Britney Murphey's character in Clueless. All makeover were given by someone else. These movies are from the 90's and 80's. Decades ago. Recent teen movies like Easy A and The Duff stand by the philosophy that you shouldn't have to change yourself to be accepted and/or liked and that you should love yourself. The She's All That transition is outdated in the sense that if you pay attention to youth today and social media, there's this whole 'love yourself, body positive' message/agenda going on and very few believe in that cliche anymore. I don't that this will go over well with women and teens.

No person on this planet should have to change their physical appearance unless they want to or they ask for it. Because they feel like it or it's deep internal issues within themeselves, not because someone else wants the change or they feel like they're not accepted and they have to change. I.E, if YOU don't like who you are, not because someone else doesn't. That's why I'm cringing at the idea of Liz Allan giving Michelle a 'makeover'. Which is different than dressing up nicely for a Homecoming dance, a makeover is usually extreme and completely changes how someone looks.

The cliche only works if it's an internal change not physical. Like if the character is an ******* or a bad person. Kind of like how at the end of TASM, Flash no longer bullies Peter and the two are friends. Well written character development, not completely changing the character. This doesn't really apply to MJ though. She does not need this arc. It doesn't fit, because MJ is not character that is outdated or bad that need fixing.

 

[X Knight]

To those who seem to be fine with the ugly duckling to bombshell cliche:

IMO, this arc is usually applied only to female characters and I find it incredibly sexist. I also find it outdated and find it to be an overused cliche, one that certainly does not fit in 2016. Especially when you're pandering to the teen audience. It's also an arc that does not fit the character Mary Jane Here's why.
The idea that teens, especially teen girls, have to change who they are to be liked and accepted by society, men, family, whatever is such a wrong message to send to teens and anyone really. What's wrong with who you are? Why can't they love themselves and why can't we love them? Why do they have to change? There was nothing wrong with the way Laney and Allison looked in She's All That and in Breakfast Club. Even if there was, who cares? They got makeovers to be accepted, popular and get the cool hot guy. Similar to Britney Murphey's character in Clueless. All makeover were given by someone else. These movies are from the 90's and 80's. Decades ago. Recent teen movies like Easy A and The Duff stand by the philosophy that you shouldn't have to change yourself to be accepted and/or liked and that you should love yourself. The She's All That transition is outdated in the sense that if you pay attention to youth today and social media, there's this whole 'love yourself, body positive' message/agenda going on and very few believe in that cliche anymore. I don't that this will go over well with women and teens.

No person on this planet should have to change their physical appearance unless they want to or they ask for it. Because they feel like it or it's deep internal issues within themeselves, not because someone else wants the change or they feel like they're not accepted and they have to change. I.E, if YOU don't like who you are, not because someone else doesn't. That's why I'm cringing at the idea of Liz Allan giving Michelle a 'makeover'. Which is different than dressing up nicely for a Homecoming dance, a makeover is usually extreme and completely changes how someone looks.

The cliche only works if it's an internal change not physical. Like if the character is an ******* or a bad person. Kind of like how at the end of TASM, Flash no longer bullies Peter and the two are friends. Well written character development, not completely changing the character. This doesn't really apply to MJ though. She does not need this arc. It doesn't fit, because MJ is not character that is outdated or bad that need fixing.

good points.

and it would really be a Bizarro world where Liz Allan gives MJ makeover tips.......

 

[marijuanawatson]

Well I'll just help myself to this image and use it for a new character I'll decide to create then. Marvel will have nothing on me because this doesn't define her at all. It's only her personality that does.

But you can be sure that if there were a film or TV show with a character that had the classic alpha female Mary Jane personality and later showed herself to be much more than a superficial party girl, Marvel wouldn't be able to do much about that. And in fact, we have had someone in fiction like that called Cordelia Chase from Buffy.


This is actually done a lot in literature. It was done in the High School Musical films and in the recent Scream TV show. Sharpay and Brooke, respectfully.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Bond like MJ started off as a literary character but his hair was ALWAYS dark and had a coma, which was painstakenly referenced in many of the novels.
As for the movies, from Connery to Brosnan, Bond always had dark hair and was over 6ft tall. Craig came along with his blond hair and 5ft 10 frame and proved none of the aforementioned mattered in the slightest.

1) i don't think anyone noticed the height difference. i sure as hell didn't

2) well you got me on the hair, i didn't realize t was referenced in the books.

but lets also realize for a moment.. the rest of bonds visual iconography physical and accessory.....


Physical Traits/attire
-Charming good looks
-Suit with bow tie

Accessories
-gadgets
-Astin Martin
-Martini's,
-Guns
-Girls

Profession
-Spy for MI6

Personality
-Quiet
-Guarded
-Charming
-Flirtatious
-Sensual
-Gentleman

If bond has that... and we visually see that.. then he's still james bond...

look at it like this.. how many petals can you pluck off a flower until it barely resembles the flower it was? Bond has a decent amount of Petals... MJ does not..

Physical traits
-Good Looks
-Green Eyes (usually cat eyed makeup)
-Red Hair
-Model body
-usually jeans and a t-shirt (or her brown pants and black sleevless look) But also always stylish when out and about.

Accessory Traits
-None

Profession
-Aspiring Actress/Model
-Love Interest
-Wife

Personality
-Strong Female Lead (she is neither weak or needy)
-Guarded with a Facade
-Knows how to Flirt
-Tough yet Femminine

if you pluck her hair away.. she already begins to look nothing like Mary Jane especially with no set outfit or accessories to tie the image in... but then if you strip her of most of her personality traits... and likely her profession too... is she still mary jane?

is Bond still bond without his suits? his martini? his Astin Martin? his gadgets? his charming good looks?
no, he's really not.