Homecoming The Zendaya is Mary Jane thread - Part 1

[spideyboy_1111]

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"

thank you buddy

 

[Chesterfield]

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.

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.

Craig's looks were a huge factor because he wasn't considered traditionally handsome and there were many die hard fans who had written him off but once the film came out, he changed the minds of many people and has already cemented himself as one if the best Bond's ever not to mention the fact that his 4 films have grossed Billions and Skyfall alone is in the top 15 financially successful films of all time. Someone who's such a huge departure like Craig in terms of looks and character has redefined the character and obviously proved his popularity with the masses. Depending on if films take risks with their characters this can either be a success or a failure and I'm sorry but MJ doesn't come close to being in the same breath as Bond when it comes to iconic status and recognisability.
MJ is more than enough to be fair game for artistic bending regardless if one likes it or not.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

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



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".



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.

Because it's the iconography that matters... its about imagery.. and that doesn't matter if something is real or fiction. MJ's looks change alot in the comics too.. from hairstyles to make-up to face.. all depending on the artist.. but all common traits stay the same

it's the "look" that makes those things iconic.. not necessarily the physical human being (yes they help, but we are talking imagery here). I could pull up a random non-iconic photo of both elvis and Marilyn and itd be far less memorable than the pop culture iconic looks.. get what i'm saying?

(think halloween costumes for example) when someone dresses up as elvis or Marylin.. they're dressing up as an "iconic look" they don't necessarily actually "look" like the real historical characters.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

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

because IT DOESNT MATTER TO THE FANS..

fans typically treat characters they love and have an attachment with, the same respect as if they were real people. Hell have you never cried in a movie or felt emotion while reading a comic book? just because something isn't or wasn't a physical living thing doesn't mean it doesn't "feel" real to people... I don't understand why this even needs to be brought up.. "fictional characters can change because they're not real" so what? why's it suddenly wrong for fans to what they want and not accept that kind of change? especially when we wouldn't have these films without the fans in the first place.

 

[X Knight]

I can't wait for the day when we see a short, 5'3", fat, bald Superman on screen who gets around with a jetpack and uses a stun gun to subdue criminals.

if such a film can even get made and become successful commercially and critically, then I know we will truly have entered a world where these characters can be changed without repercussions or controversy.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I can't wait for the day when we see a short, 5'3", fat, bald Superman on screen who gets around with a jetpack and uses a stun gun to subdue criminals.

if such a film can even get made and become successful commercially and critically, then I know we will truly have entered a world where these characters can be changed without repercussions or controversy.

yup.. can you imagine if the first adaptation of Lord of the Rings was a space epic? or if Harry Potter was set in a dystopian future?

 

[Chesterfield]

because IT DOESNT MATTER TO THE FANS..

Clearly it does.

fans typically treat characters they love and have an attachment with, the same respect as if they were real people.

Thats a huge sized generelisation which isnt even true.

Hell have you never cried in a movie or felt emotion while reading a comic book?

I have but that's down to what is being presented in front of me not because of the degree of accuracy to whatever the status quo is.

just because something isn't or wasn't a physical living thing doesn't mean it doesn't "feel" real to people... I don't understand why this even needs to be brought up..

It doesn't need to be brought up but you're doing it anyway because you're confusing 2 different things.

"fictional characters can change because they're not real" so what? why's it suddenly wrong for fans to what they want and not accept that kind of change? especially when we wouldn't have these films without the fans in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with wanting that and I haven't said otherwise. My point is, anything that is fiction, when presented in a different medium can be interpreted in any number of ways (within reason) that differs from the source. For instance, me personally, I wouldn't be happy if they turned MJ into a dude.

 

[Dark Raven]

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.

One can only make so many trips to the well before Mary Jane has been completely deflowered.

 

[Chesterfield]

I can't wait for the day when we see a short, 5'3", fat, bald Superman on screen who gets around with a jetpack and uses a stun gun to subdue criminals.

if such a film can even get made and become successful commercially and critically, then I know we will truly have entered a world where these characters can be changed without repercussions or controversy.

Now that's just being silly. If you have to make overly dramatic extreme scenarios then I don't think you fully grasp and comprehend the logic that supports or isn't bothered by some of these changes.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Clearly it does.

??? you're not comprehending.. i was clearly saying IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THE FANS if they're real or fiction.. the same rules apply

Thats a huge sized generelisation which isnt even true.

fine.. "many fans" which actually is true.. you've never binge watched a show and suddenly feel like when its over your friends are gone? people do this all the time.. its called "attachment"

I have but that's down to what is being presented in front of me not because of the degree of accuracy to whatever the status quote is.

again...you still can't comprehend it.. the best i can say is you clearly have an attachment to bond.. you might of like Craig after the fact.. but you probably still have a fondness for the classic take of bond and wouldn't mind it returning someday. You also got a bond that was still on the surface the same... sure you can nit-pick it.. but he's got all the iconography still down.. What we know about this MJ... is not that. She doesn't have any of the iconography down from what we can tell.

There's nothing wrong with wanting that and I haven't said otherwise. My point is, anything that is fiction, when presented in a different medium can be interpreted in any number of ways (within reason) that differs from the source. For instance, me personally, I wouldn't be happy if they turned MJ into a dude.

The way you feel about MJ being a dude.. is the EXACT way i feel about MJ not having red hair...

 

[spideyboy_1111]

One can only make so many trips to the well before Mary Jane has been completely deflowered.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Now that's just being silly. If you have to make overly dramatic extreme scenarios then I don't think you fully grasp and comprehend the logic that supports or isn't bothered by some of these changes.

i'm going to be frank with you...

many of us DO NOT CARE about anyone who isn't bothered by these changes.. we are bothered by the fact (AND DO CARE) when people who clearly don't care.. want to tell us what we can or can't feel or if something is frivolous and doesn't matter.. sorry.. but there opinion doesn't matter not if they would be fine with it either way... They don't get to tell people how it is...

No one has the right to tell a fan what they can or can't be upset about and they shouldn't certainly patronize them and tell them "you haven't even seen the film yet... wait and see" sorry.. a turd is still a turd... even if it's a Turd on Space Mountain at disneyland.. i may still enjoy the ride.. but im going to be incredibly off-put by riding with a turd.

i really don't need to wait and see if that turd is really a tootsie roll.

 

[X Knight]

Now that's just being silly. If you have to make overly dramatic extreme scenarios then I don't think you fully grasp and comprehend the logic that supports or isn't bothered by some of these changes.

but is it silly?

Yes, it's an extreme example. but, if it's ok to make changes to these characters because they are mere fictional characters, then when does it stop?

I certainly wouldn't want to see a short, 5'3", fat, bald Superman who flies around with a jetpack and uses a stun gun.

but let's say a filmmaker many years from now wants to tell that vision of Superman. shouldn't he have the right to make changes to the character to tell the vision he wants?

after all, these are just fictional characters who can be changed.......right?

 

[sl500jazz]

Because it's the iconography that matters... its about imagery.. and that doesn't matter if something is real or fiction. MJ's looks change alot in the comics too.. from hairstyles to make-up to face.. all depending on the artist.. but all common traits stay the same

it's the "look" that makes those things iconic.. not necessarily the physical human being (yes they help, but we are talking imagery here). I could pull up a random non-iconic photo of both elvis and Marilyn and itd be far less memorable than the pop culture iconic looks.. get what i'm saying?

(think halloween costumes for example) when someone dresses up as elvis or Marylin.. they're dressing up as an "iconic look" they don't necessarily actually "look" like the real historical characters.

But again we’re talking about adapting a fictional character and likening it to “changing” real people. I get the attachment to a particular version of the character, but it’s a strange comparison to me. I’m assuming that we’re speaking in the context of film. A film involving Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe would likely be biographical (or at the very least biographical fiction), and as such, would naturally strive to capture a semblance of what those individuals actually looked like at point x in their lives. The “iconic imagery” in this sense is also factual representation. The platinum blonde locks and white halter dress that we often see in these Marilyn costumes is how Marilyn actually dressed in The Seven Year Itch, and changing that would be akin to rewriting history.

 

[harryoscop]

i'm going to be frank with you...

many of us DO NOT CARE about anyone who isn't bothered by these changes.. we are bothered by the fact (AND DO CARE) when people who clearly don't care.. want to tell us what we can or can't feel or if something is frivolous and doesn't matter.. sorry.. but there opinion doesn't matter not if they would be fine with it either way... They don't get to tell people how it is...

No one has the right to tell a fan what they can or can't be upset about and they shouldn't certainly patronize them and tell them "you haven't even seen the film yet... wait and see" sorry.. a turd is still a turd... even if it's a Turd on Space Mountain at disneyland.. i may still enjoy the ride.. but im going to be incredibly off-put by riding with a turd.

i really don't need to wait and see if that turd is really a tootsie roll.

 

[X Knight]

??? you're not comprehending.. i was clearly saying IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THE FANS if they're real or fiction.. the same rules apply



fine.. "many fans" which actually is true.. you've never binge watched a show and suddenly feel like when its over your friends are gone? people do this all the time.. its called "attachment"




again...you still can't comprehend it.. the best i can say is you clearly have an attachment to bond.. you might of like Craig after the fact.. but you probably still have a fondness for the classic take of bond and wouldn't mind it returning someday. You also got a bond that was still on the surface the same... sure you can nit-pick it.. but he's got all the iconography still down.. What we know about this MJ... is not that. She doesn't have any of the iconography down from what we can tell.




The way you feel about MJ being a dude.. is the EXACT way i feel about MJ not having red hair...

and it's the exact way I feel about MJ turning into a plain, frumpy, unattractive, quiet, dry, awkward bookworm who then has to "transform" into the way MJ is supposed to be.

 

[PeterBenParker]

 

[X Knight]

heh. that's been my reaction to most of the casting decisions in this film.

 

[PeterBenParker]

heh. that's been my reaction to most of the casting decisions in this film.

I'm just very conflicted. I agree with both parties and yet I'm staying out of this discussion. t:

 

[KalvinEllis]

lol That was also my reaction when I heard he was cast as GL. Little did I know that he would turn out to be the least of the movie's problems.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

But again we’re talking about adapting a fictional character and likening it to “changing” real people. I get the attachment to a particular version of the character, but it’s a strange comparison to me. I’m assuming that we’re speaking in the context of film. A film involving Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe would likely be biographical (or at the very least biographical fiction), and as such, would naturally strive to capture a semblance of what those individuals actually looked like at point x in their lives. The “iconic imagery” in this sense is also factual representation. The platinum blonde locks and white halter dress that we often see in these Marilyn costumes is how Marilyn actually dressed in The Seven Year Itch, and changing that would be akin to rewriting history.

it shouldn't be compared anyway.. you can't tell someone "well they can be changed because they're fiction" and then justify it with real people...

hell bio-pics change things sometimes even...

But that's not the point.. you're talking about Fiction vers non fiction.. and i'm talking about pop-culture imagery... which is just as historical... You can change the Nike logo.. but its going to get backlash... and the old one will still be more iconic.

I'm talking about pop culture iconography as in images. VISUAL pop culture. Not the historical aspect of a characters life.

everyone has an image in their head of what marylin looks like... and 9 times out of 10 its probably the 7 year itch white dress...

Elvis.. is a little trickier.. some will remember him best in his jail house rock days.. others will remember him more in his final heavy-set days... both just as iconic but different opinions on what would be more of the "classic" look..

similarly.. the same rules apply to batman.. some will say all black, some will say grey/black, some will say grey/blue... its all about iconography though.. an image that sticks out in your mind... For MJ its easily the "Jackpot" intro image... that's probably the most recognizable look for MJ... can her look, styling etc.. be altered? sure. but if she's changed too much she wont look as recognizable.. and certainly not iconic.

If we are talking character history.. that's another story.. you can't or shouldn't really change a real life characters history on film.. and you have more leeway to make such changes with fictional charters.. but that doesn't mean you should either... Change imo should only happen when it needs too... when something just wont work. This is something we did every single day of college in art school.. you can't display a piece of art and just say "because i liked it better" Every change you make.. you have to justify.. and if there's no real reason you can justify doing it a certain way.. or if you alter perception to make it more difficult to understand (I was a graphic design major btw.. so information design was important) then you have to justify it or drop it.. you can't force it.

I personally see no valid reason MJ needed changed.. and from the looks of it.. based on those who tried out for the part.. they wanted a non-white actress from the get go. And that is change for the sake of change.. not "whos the best for the role". and sorry.. but "we wanted more diversity" isn't an answer either... not when the rest of the cast is already diverse.

 

[marijuanawatson]

---

 

[harryoscop]

I'm just very conflicted. I agree with both parties and yet I'm staying out of this discussion. t:

Spoiler

 

[X Knight]

I'm just very conflicted. I agree with both parties and yet I'm staying out of this discussion. t:

smart man.

 

[marijuanawatson]

---