Homecoming The Zendaya is possibly someone, maybe thread - Part 3

[spideyboy_1111]

Frumpy is subjective. Ya'll really are acting like Zendaya has been turned into some hideous monster. When it reminds me of that line Etta has in Wonder Woman ''Like putting a pair of glasses isn't going to make her the most beautiful woman in the world."

We don't know if she's truly unpopular, in fact I'm pretty sure she has FRIENDS, considering one of of her lines we've actually heard is ''My friend is up there!".

The bookworm thing is new however.

You've pre-conditioned yourself to not like this development, so you're reaching mostly to justify your hatred.

to be fair, people wouldn't be saying frumpy if we didn't already know what zendaya looks like and how she normally appears. That's what is polarizing, the difference. She's described herself as a dry loner .. that doesn't make one popular.

 

[harryoscop]

Frumpy is subjective. Ya'll really are acting like Zendaya has been turned into some hideous monster. When it reminds me of that line Etta has in Wonder Woman ''Like putting a pair of glasses isn't going to make her the most beautiful woman in the world."

We don't know if she's truly unpopular, in fact I'm pretty sure she has FRIENDS, considering one of of her lines we've actually heard is ''My friend is up there!".

The bookworm thing is new however.

You've pre-conditioned yourself to not like this development, so you're reaching mostly to justify your hatred.

Lol Michelle is the definition of "frumpy" (not knocking any guys/girls out there who are like this):

Especially compared to regular Zendaya:

Spoiler

The point is, classic MJ was always suppose to be gorgeous, Michelle is a complete 180'.


They intentionally made her that way to fit with Ally Sheed from the Breakfast Club. Zendaya is naturally gorgeous but they visibly tried to make her plain as possible.


She told Peter & Ned she sits by them during lunch cuz she doesn't have any friends. She showed up at the party & followed Peter & Ned around again because she has zero friends. When she reveals her initials, they again joke about her having no friends. It's not up for debate.






Absolutely not, I was one of the people supporting the idea of Z as MJ before those set pics came out & before Michelle's personality was fully revealed in the trailers.

 

[Broseph44]

Lol Michelle is the definition of "frumpy" (not knocking any guys/girls out there who are like this):

Especially compared to regular Zendaya:

Spoiler

The point is, classic MJ was always suppose to be gorgeous, Michelle is a complete 180'.


They intentionally made her that way to fit with Ally Sheed from the Breakfast Club. Zendaya is naturally gorgeous but they visibly tried to make her plain as possible.


She told Peter & Ned she sits by them during lunch cuz she doesn't have any friends. She showed up at the party & followed Peter & Ned around again because she has zero friends. When she reveals her initials, they again joke about her having no friends. It's not up for debate.






Absolutely not, I was one of the people supporting the idea of Z as MJ before those set pics came out & before Michelle's personality was fully revealed in the trailers.

That top pic is actually her in the film? Oh god haha

 

[Leo Zelinsky]

Anyways, back to semi-retirement.

It's been fun, gang!

I'm loving Zendaya as Mary Jane or whatever they want to call her.

 

[harryoscop]

That top pic is actually her in the film? Oh god haha

Yep

 

[SirStrangefolk]

I think Zendaya looks more attractive as Michelle than she normally does. I also think Ally Sheedy's transformation in Breakfast Club made her look not as good as before.

 

[fuflipflops]

Sigh. I swear it's like you all don't even know the character you're talking about. Peter and MJ could not stand one another when they first met. They were not a love at first sight, best friends forever thing in the main universe.

If anything Michelle being annoyed by him and secretly harboring some feelings is probably more accurate than actually starting out with her being a beautiful red head who is automatically in love with him.

 

[X Knight]

Full of Fun.

So Alive.

Makes Everything Seem Like a Party.

That describes Mary Jane Watson.

Michelle "MJ?" not so much.............

 

[spideyyhero]

what the **** is wrong with you marvel?

She is beautiful and should be Mary Jane with THIS appearance.

 

[Mysteryman]

what the **** is wrong with you marvel?

She is beautiful and should be Mary Jane with THIS appearance.

If she is indeed playing MJ or some version of her, Marvel appears to want to keep it a surprise.
It wouldn't be a surprise if Zendaya looked like the photos above in Homecoming.

 

[SpideyJJ]

this thread

 

[Spider-Fan83]

Sigh. I swear it's like you all don't even know the character you're talking about. Peter and MJ could not stand one another when they first met. They were not a love at first sight, best friends forever thing in the main universe.

If anything Michelle being annoyed by him and secretly harboring some feelings is probably more accurate than actually starting out with her being a beautiful red head who is automatically in love with him.

I can kinda understand where your coming from, especially about it not being love as first sight... but it was always lust at first sight for him, even though there were times that he got annoyed with her "life is a party" mind set (since he didn't have such a care free life, he had to taken his responsibilities seriously, an was obligated to choice helping others over his own happiness, and she was the opposite of that) but he always liked her more then she liked him, cause he knew(or believed at the time) she was way out of his league, and never understood (until later) what she saw in him

she was never the "one an only" early on, this is true (and she shouldn't be, yet) that came much later on

probably the best example is this panel from Spider-man Blue..

Spoiler

(^click for full page)

but that doesn't seem to be what were getting either

 

[Mysteryman]

I can kinda understand where your coming from, especially about it not being love as first sight... but it was always lust at first sight for him, even though there were times that he got annoyed with her "life is a party" mind set (since he didn't have such a care free life, he had to taken his responsibilities seriously, an was obligated to choice helping others over his own happiness, and she was the opposite of that) but he always liked her more then she liked him, cause he knew(or believed at the time) she was way out of his league, and never understood (until later) what she saw in him

she was never the "one an only" early on, this is true (and she shouldn't be, yet) that came much later on

probably the best example is this panel from Spider-man Blue..

Spoiler

(^click for full page)

but that doesn't seem to be what were getting either

The scene that Peter is describing in the panels is at the end of Amazing Spider-Man 122.
My favorite scene from A Spider-Man comic ever.

 

[jaymes_e06]

If she is indeed playing MJ or some version of her, Marvel appears to want to keep it a surprise.
It wouldn't be a surprise if Zendaya looked like the photos above in Homecoming.

Why does it need to be a "surprise" exactly?

What a stupid way to create shock value. If she's playing Mary Jane she should just play her and not do this playing with peoples emotions. I thought Marvel tried to stay as close to the source as possible and that was what set them apart from say... Fox Marvel but this is probably one of the worst redux of a character I've seen from any CBM.

 

[hafizbat]

Lol you guys do realize that she's supposed to be like 15 in this movie...expecting a bombshell supermodel is ridiculous. Worst case scenario they're going with the ugly duckling idea and I don't see anything wrong with that. And guys, so what if the character is a little different? Like seriously, so what? All that matters is that the movie and characters are good. Open up your minds.

 

[Mysteryman]

Why does it need to be a "surprise" exactly?

What a stupid way to create shock value. If she's playing Mary Jane she should just play her and not do this playing with peoples emotions. I thought Marvel tried to stay as close to the source as possible and that was what set them apart from say... Fox Marvel but this is probably one of the worst redux of a character I've seen from any CBM.

I don't think that it has to be a surprise.
But if she is MJ, Marvel has not reveled that in the marketing campaign.

 

[jaymes_e06]

^If they are purposefully concealing the fact that she is "MJ" (worst kept secret of all time btw)
what else would it be called.

Lol you guys do realize that she's supposed to be like 15 in this movie...expecting a bombshell supermodel is ridiculous. Worst case scenario they're going with the ugly duckling idea and I don't see anything wrong with that. And guys, so what if the character is a little different? Like seriously, so what? All that matters is that the movie and characters are good. Open up your minds.

It's okay to change characters into whatever they want but we don't have to like it.

 

[hafizbat]

It's okay to change characters into whatever they want but we don't have to like it.

Sure. But being so rigid and not even giving them a chance to show you the movie first is called being dogmatic and hardheaded.

It doesn't even make sense. The character is fictional and everything about her was made up at some point. You guys are treating her history as gospel when it was just some writer's ideas, just like the character in Homecoming. It just does not make sense to be so rigid about a fictional character lol.

The only difference between classic MJ and Homecoming MJ is that you guys are used to the classic version. That doesn't mean she's automatically better...

Seriously, all this complaining and the only reason you guys can come up with is that she's not like the classic version? Why don't you try judging the character on her own merits?

 

[Mysteryman]

Sure. But being so rigid and not even giving them a chance to show you the movie first is called being dogmatic and hardheaded.

It doesn't even make sense. The character is fictional and everything about her was made up at some point. You guys are treating her history as gospel when it was just some writer's ideas, just like the character in Homecoming. It just does not make sense to be so rigid about a fictional character lol.

The only difference between classic MJ and Homecoming MJ is that you guys are used to the classic version. That doesn't mean she's automatically better...

Seriously, all this complaining and the only reason you guys can come up with is that she's not like the classic version? Why don't you try judging the character on her own merits?

That would require seeing the film.
And there seem seem to be some here who have decided to prejudge it.

 

[Shikamaru]

Sure. But being so rigid and not even giving them a chance to show you the movie first is called being dogmatic and hardheaded.

It doesn't even make sense. The character is fictional and everything about her was made up at some point. You guys are treating her history as gospel when it was just some writer's ideas, just like the character in Homecoming. It just does not make sense to be so rigid about a fictional character lol.

The only difference between classic MJ and Homecoming MJ is that you guys are used to the classic version. That doesn't mean she's automatically better...

Seriously, all this complaining and the only reason you guys can come up with is that she's not like the classic version? Why don't you try judging the character on her own merits?

These are all just ideas, but not all ideas are created equal.

As I often say, ideas in storytelling are a lot like morality. There's no objective "best" idea like there's no objective "best" morality, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't think about why a literary or moral idea is better than another one. In each case you have to use your reasoning skills, hear the other side of the argument, and then reach a conclusion.

MJ's archetype was revolutionary for her time. Much like how Peter was a response to youth autonomy, MJ was a response to second-wave feminism. You replace an archetype like that with a brooding bookworm and there's bound to be some who will argue the former idea was "better". None of them necessarily believe it's "objectively" better; they're very much applying their reasoning skills in the way I described.

I'll grant you the extent of the reactions are rigid (for some at least), but a certain level of reaction is understandable IMO.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Sure. But being so rigid and not even giving them a chance to show you the movie first is called being dogmatic and hardheaded.

It doesn't even make sense. The character is fictional and everything about her was made up at some point. You guys are treating her history as gospel when it was just some writer's ideas, just like the character in Homecoming. It just does not make sense to be so rigid about a fictional character lol.

The only difference between classic MJ and Homecoming MJ is that you guys are used to the classic version. That doesn't mean she's automatically better...

Seriously, all this complaining and the only reason you guys can come up with is that she's not like the classic version? Why don't you try judging the character on her own merits?

Because it isn't the same character at all so why go through all the hoops and just make the character stay true to the heart of the character or not make MJ appear at all? It feels contrived and people are calling it as they see it and rightfully so imo.

 

[The Ones]

Sure. But being so rigid and not even giving them a chance to show you the movie first is called being dogmatic and hardheaded.

It doesn't even make sense. The character is fictional and everything about her was made up at some point. You guys are treating her history as gospel when it was just some writer's ideas, just like the character in Homecoming. It just does not make sense to be so rigid about a fictional character lol.

The only difference between classic MJ and Homecoming MJ is that you guys are used to the classic version. That doesn't mean she's automatically better...

Seriously, all this complaining and the only reason you guys can come up with is that she's not like the classic version? Why don't you try judging the character on her own merits?

You would have a point if Marvel didn't have a track record of trying to retain some sort of accuracy and paying attention to what they adapt and how they adapt it in the past. With everything that has been changed through the Adaptation process in the MCU so far, the core elements, character names, roles and personalities have all remained the same. Some changes even enhance the characters to a greater deal and every change has had a motive to it. You could look at characters on screen and even though some are different, you can still see alot in common across the mediums and iterations

For example. Vision doesn't look exactly like his Comic Counterpart but he is still a Synthetic Android called Vision created by Ultron who becomes an Avenger. Visions forehead gem isn't an Infinity Stone in the comics but making it one still results in a forehead gem that grants him some power (and even still allows him to shoot beams like his comic counterpart). It also ties him into the current Thanos story alot better and provides a shortcut to get to the end point of his character. MCU Ultron wasn't created by Hank Pym but thats because Hank Pym hadn't been introduced yet in the MCU, so the change to Tony was done for convenience but the end result was still alot similar. It was impossible to make Scarlet Witch a Mutant so they changed the source of her powers to come from an Infinity Stone. However she still has mind and reality warping powers and changing the source of it to be from the same Infinity Stone that grants Vision his power provides a nifty shortcut to get the Comic pairing of Scarlet Witch and Vision. It also makes their relationship alot more interesting to watch as they are bound for greater reasons beyond physical attraction.

Hell even when the MCU decided to make radical departures from Comic Canon, like completely changing who Peter Quill's father is in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, they actually committed with changing the character entirely and used Ego's lore and attributed that to the movie and Peter himself. They didn't change Peter's Dad to be a Celestial Planet with the same characteristics and abilities as Ego, but still call him J'son anyway (which would be similar to calling Gwen Betty in Homecoming, or Ganke Ned)

You can trace this to everything. Every change that has been done so far has been twofold. 1) To fit it in with the story that has been told so far and 2) has been to get the best distillation of the characters that have existed for Decades. Neither of which can be said for alot of the changes that are being presented in Homecoming. Specifically MJ (due to the topic), which seems to be an entirely original character masquerading as an adaption, pretending that it simply has hundreds of changes made that doesn't do anything to try and make what was on the page work within the context of the world that has already been established and the story they are telling.

You are right, we havn't seen the movie, but we are only going on the information we have been provided and everything that is coming out says that the decisions that have been made betray a lack of care or understanding. Which in itself wouldn't matter (as you said, its all fictional), if the track record beforehand wasn't so deliberate and atleast tried to pull to the source when it could but didn't hit too far off the mark when it couldn't. All it does is just make the choices curious the the decision making questionable

 

[harryoscop]

You would have a point if Marvel didn't have a track record of trying to retain some sort of accuracy and paying attention to what they adapt and how they adapt it in the past. With everything that has been changed through the Adaptation process in the MCU so far, the core elements, character names, roles and personalities have all remained the same. Some changes even enhance the characters to a greater deal and every change has had a motive to it. You could look at characters on screen and even though some are different, you can still see alot in common across the mediums and iterations

For example. Vision doesn't look exactly like his Comic Counterpart but he is still a Synthetic Android called Vision created by Ultron who becomes an Avenger. Visions forehead gem isn't an Infinity Stone in the comics but making it one still results in a forehead gem that grants him some power (and even still allows him to shoot beams like his comic counterpart). It also ties him into the current Thanos story alot better and provides a shortcut to get to the end point of his character. MCU Ultron wasn't created by Hank Pym but thats because Hank Pym hadn't been introduced yet in the MCU, so the change to Tony was done for convenience but the end result was still alot similar. It was impossible to make Scarlet Witch a Mutant so they changed the source of her powers to come from an Infinity Stone. However she still has mind and reality warping powers and changing the source of it to be from the same Infinity Stone that grants Vision his power provides a nifty shortcut to get the Comic pairing of Scarlet Witch and Vision. It also makes their relationship alot more interesting to watch as they are bound for greater reasons beyond physical attraction.

Hell even when the MCU decided to make radical departures from Comic Canon, like completely changing who Peter Quill's father is in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, they actually committed with changing the character entirely and used Ego's lore and attributed that to the movie and Peter himself. They didn't change Peter's Dad to be a Celestial Planet with the same characteristics and abilities as Ego, but still call him J'son anyway (which would be similar to calling Gwen Betty in Homecoming, or Ganke Ned)

You can trace this to everything. Every change that has been done so far has been twofold. 1) To fit it in with the story that has been told so far and 2) has been to get the best distillation of the characters that have existed for Decades. Neither of which can be said for alot of the changes that are being presented in Homecoming. Specifically MJ (due to the topic), which seems to be an entirely original character masquerading as an adaption, pretending that it simply has hundreds of changes made that doesn't do anything to try and make what was on the page work within the context of the world that has already been established and the story they are telling.

You are right, we havn't seen the movie, but we are only going on the information we have been provided and everything that is coming out says that the decisions that have been made betray a lack of care or understanding. Which in itself wouldn't matter (as you said, its all fictional), if the track record beforehand wasn't so deliberate and atleast tried to pull to the source when it could but didn't hit too far off the mark when it couldn't. All it does is just make the choices curious the the decision making questionable

Preach. This is what I was trying to explain to them. The radical, major changes this movie has made to the Spider-Man mythos is not the norm for Marvel Studios. They always try o keep the spirit intact & for the most part, there is always careful attention to detail for both their main characters & their supporting cast from the comics.

It makes it all the more baffling that their crown jewel (as proclaimed by Feige) would get this kind of treatment. It only made sense to expect something as amazing & faithful as the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon from Marvel. But what we're getting is the opposite of that.

 

[SpideyJJ]

You would have a point if Marvel didn't have a track record of trying to retain some sort of accuracy and paying attention to what they adapt and how they adapt it in the past. With everything that has been changed through the Adaptation process in the MCU so far, the core elements, character names, roles and personalities have all remained the same. Some changes even enhance the characters to a greater deal and every change has had a motive to it. You could look at characters on screen and even though some are different, you can still see alot in common across the mediums and iterations

For example. Vision doesn't look exactly like his Comic Counterpart but he is still a Synthetic Android called Vision created by Ultron who becomes an Avenger. Visions forehead gem isn't an Infinity Stone in the comics but making it one still results in a forehead gem that grants him some power (and even still allows him to shoot beams like his comic counterpart). It also ties him into the current Thanos story alot better and provides a shortcut to get to the end point of his character. MCU Ultron wasn't created by Hank Pym but thats because Hank Pym hadn't been introduced yet in the MCU, so the change to Tony was done for convenience but the end result was still alot similar. It was impossible to make Scarlet Witch a Mutant so they changed the source of her powers to come from an Infinity Stone. However she still has mind and reality warping powers and changing the source of it to be from the same Infinity Stone that grants Vision his power provides a nifty shortcut to get the Comic pairing of Scarlet Witch and Vision. It also makes their relationship alot more interesting to watch as they are bound for greater reasons beyond physical attraction.

Hell even when the MCU decided to make radical departures from Comic Canon, like completely changing who Peter Quill's father is in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, they actually committed with changing the character entirely and used Ego's lore and attributed that to the movie and Peter himself. They didn't change Peter's Dad to be a Celestial Planet with the same characteristics and abilities as Ego, but still call him J'son anyway (which would be similar to calling Gwen Betty in Homecoming, or Ganke Ned)

You can trace this to everything. Every change that has been done so far has been twofold. 1) To fit it in with the story that has been told so far and 2) has been to get the best distillation of the characters that have existed for Decades. Neither of which can be said for alot of the changes that are being presented in Homecoming. Specifically MJ (due to the topic), which seems to be an entirely original character masquerading as an adaption, pretending that it simply has hundreds of changes made that doesn't do anything to try and make what was on the page work within the context of the world that has already been established and the story they are telling.

You are right, we havn't seen the movie, but we are only going on the information we have been provided and everything that is coming out says that the decisions that have been made betray a lack of care or understanding. Which in itself wouldn't matter (as you said, its all fictional), if the track record beforehand wasn't so deliberate and atleast tried to pull to the source when it could but didn't hit too far off the mark when it couldn't. All it does is just make the choices curious the the decision making questionable

You're post is irrelevant because you haven't seen the movie

 

[C Prometheus]

Remember that this all stems from one guy on reddit. :P

Just saying....

For some reason I'm not sure if it would be getting constant positive reviews if something this silly and controversial to a beloved Spider-Man character ends up in the film, I dunno. I'm probably wrong and maybe the critics just don't care about the change as much as some of us.

I personally don't doubt that the whole thing of Zendaya playing Michelle/"MJ" is true. It's just that it seems the film is ultimately that good at making everything work. Which is wonderful news imo.

Personally, I don't mind them mixing things up a bit with the Spidey cast. From what clips we've seen of Michelle/"MJ" in the film so far, I'm seeing what matters most to me about the Mary Jane Watson I've come to know over the years: Her wit and her free spirit.

It's like someone else brought up; Mary Jane Watson was created and very much informed by the second wave of Feminism of that timeframe. This incarnation seems to follow suit of that.

No, Michelle/"MJ" doesn't seem to be the partying aspiring actress/model of the 616 universe, and she also seems to be more anti-social than her Ultimate universe counterpart too. But they all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Now I could be wrong on that, as I haven't seen the whole film yet for myself. But that's just how it's connecting for me from what we've seen so far.

My only complaint on the matter is the name. Marvel and Sony would be saving so much unnecessary stress and bickering from the community if they just outright named her "Mary Jane Watson." I get that they wanted to do a slower, twist reveal (which was obvious to any fan paying attention from the get-go), but trying to potentially pull something like "She's MJ, but not really" makes me rather uncomfortable.

Personally, my hope is that Marvel will respond to the inevitable fan response that's coming from this and firmly establish and/or retcon that Michelle's full name is "Michelle Mary Jane Watson" in subsequent films. That feels like a relatively reasonable compromise between the studios' intentions for this series and fans imo.