Homecoming The Zendaya is possibly someone, maybe thread - Part 4

[Faith_Cassidy]

It's pretty different. Beige is saying that she's not Mary Jane and never was supposed to be Mary Jane. The writer is saying she was intended to be a re-worked version of Mary Jane all along. A re-worked version and a completely new original character are different things.

He said a reinvented Mary Jane, wholly different from the comics. I don't see how Feige saying she was never supposed to Mary Jane Watson is all that different because technically, a reinvented character is not the same as the original, especially one who doesn't have the exact same name. I wouldn't be surprised if Feige himself opted to keep the MJ initials but give her a different name so that he could say Michelle isn't Mary Jane Watson because...well, that isn't her name. Doesn't mean she won't she have a similar dynamic with Peter as comic MJ, which is what I was always expecting, regardless of what her name turned out to be

 

[Moridin]

I don't see how his intention or opinion isn't relevant when in fact, the final product still has Michelle = MJ. Clearly, the idea of her as a reinvented MJ isn't something that Watts/Feige wholly objected to. And given Feige's comments, it's clear that the MJ nickname is not red herring.

A lot of things change during making a film. You could pick pretty much any film and the filmmaker will say of a particular aspect "we originally intended X but it ended up being Y". It's "Y" that matters, and Daley wasn't involved beyond "X" (first draft) so he has no authority on "Y" (final product).

I'm not saying "MJ" is a red herring, I'm saying make it a red herring, use it instead of just ignoring it and leaving it as some random, confused line that sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[Infinity9999x]

He said a reinvented Mary Jane, wholly different from the comics. I don't see how Feige saying she was never supposed to Mary Jane Watson is all that different because technically, a reinvented character is not the same as the original, especially one who doesn't have the exact same name. I wouldn't be surprised if Feige himself opted to keep the MJ initials but give her a different name so that he could say Michelle isn't Mary Jane Watson because...well, that isn't her name. Doesn't mean she won't she have a similar dynamic with Peter as comic MJ, which is what I was always expecting, regardless of what her name turned out to be

Let's look at it this way: Bane in TDKR is a reinvented version of Bane. Does he share the same broad strokes similarities with comic Bane? Yeah. He spent a lot of time in prison, has a funny mask, is really strong, and broke Batman's back.

After that, he starts to turn into pretty different interpretation. The same thing could be said of the original 60's Mr.Freeze, and the Batman TAS Mr. Freeze. Aside from the weapon, they're nearly different characters. But they still share some things. They're reinterpretations. They share similarities, but are still based on an existing character.

Now, someone like, say...Killer Crock, I would not say is based on Bane, despite having similar characteristics in broad strokes (strong bad guy, hates Batman), he's an original character.

If Zendaya was a reimagining of Mary Jane, she would still be based on Mary Jane. Her character will ultimately have similar characteristics to Mary Jane. If she's an original character, she could have nothing in common outside being a love interest.

So they're still two different things. In one case, a character is based on an existing figure, in the other, they're not. So we have two people saying two different things.

 

[Infinity9999x]

To clarify: There's a reason I'm focusing on this aside from semantics. It's because while reimagining and original characters can seem to be nearly the same things at times (TAS Freeze is nearly completely different from his original character outside his weapon), it comes down to execution.

If you say you're reimagining the character, I come in with certain preconceived notions. Now, obviously these notions are stronger depending on the popularity of the character. Nobody gave a damn about Freeze before TAS reimagined him, so no one cared how they interpreted him. People were a bit more fond of Bane, so Nolan didn't change Bane as much as TAS changed Freeze. But in both cases, I still had certain expectations regarding these characters. I expect them to behave in a certain way to an extent, because I have a preconceived notion of who they are based on.

With an original character...you can do whatever you want, because I have no preconceived ideas of how they should act or behave.

But an important thing you DON'T want to do with an original character...is somehow come up a way to get your audience member to constantly associate them with a character they're similar to. And a popular character at that. Say I'm the guy who creates Killer Crock. I'm not going to say that his name is Killer Crock...but sometimes people call him The Lizard. I don't want people to constantly think of another popular villain who is visually similar to my creation...though in execution very different from the character I've created. It starts comparisons that really aren't fair, and doesn't let my audience judge my character on it's own merits, instead, they'll be constantly comparing it to this other existing character.

That's not a good thing to do with an original character.

Which is why Marvel needs to pull the trigger on what they're doing with this character. If she's Michelle, call her Michelle. Don't reference her as MJ anymore, and let her stand on her own. You want her to be a reimagined Mary Jane? Do that then. Make her full name be Michelle Mary Jane Watson, or something of the stort, and do your version of Mary Jane.

But do one or the other. Don't do both.

 

[jmc]

This comes across a bit like comics in general where it often feels like there's a reluctance to embrace something new for fear of alienating people. What you end up with in situations like this is this weird middle ground that doesn't suit anybody.

 

[Faith_Cassidy]

A lot of things change during making a film. You could pick pretty much any film and the filmmaker will say of a particular aspect "we originally intended X but it ended up being Y". It's "Y" that matters, and Daley wasn't involved beyond "X" (first draft) so he has no authority on "Y" (final product).

I'm not saying "MJ" is a red herring, I'm saying make it a red herring, use it instead of just ignoring it and leaving it as some random, confused line that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Huh? It's clearly not random and they likely won't be ignoring it. Given the context in which it was used, I suspect that Michelle's friends will be calling her MJ.

And Daley may have no authority but he does give insight on something that was not completely abandoned by Watts/Feige.

So they're still two different things. In one case, a character is based on an existing figure, in the other, they're not. So we have two people saying two different things.

Again, JFD used the words "wholly different" which means she is nothing like her comic self yet he sees her as a reinvention, presumably because there are similarities elsewhere, likely in her relationship with Peter. That is not all that different from Feige saying she is not Mary Jane Watson but conceding that her having the MJ initials brings up some intriguing questions, re: her dynamic with Peter. He was being coy but that basically translates into Michelle being Peter's Mary Jane. Thus, in both instances, the similarities are not in the characters or depictions but in their relationship with Peter.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Feige confirmed she isnt MJ. Thank God. One mistake less easily corrected.

Actually, he confirmed she is MJ. He said she wasn't Mary Jane. This illustrates the entire issue being debated here.

Frankly, her role was so tiny I wonder what discussion we would have, if any, but for the MJ reveal. I feel like Michelle would get as much attention as Betty Brant if she were just Michelle.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Huh? It's clearly not random and they likely won't be ignoring it. Given the context in which it was used, I suspect that Michelle's friends will be calling her MJ.

And Daley may have no authority but he does give insight on something that was not completely abandoned by Watts/Feige.



Again, JFD used the words "wholly different" which means she is nothing like her comic self yet he sees her as a reinvention, presumably because there are similarities elsewhere, likely in her relationship with Peter. That is not all that different from Feige saying she is not Mary Jane Watson but conceding that her having the MJ initials brings up some intriguing questions, re: her dynamic with Peter. He was being coy but that basically translates into Michelle being Peter's Mary Jane. Thus, in both instances, the similarities are not in the characters or depictions but in their relationship with Peter.

Yeah, but as I talk about above, you can be very different yet still a reinterpretation of a character. And if they want her to be viewed as a separate original character...again...don't give her a name that makes your audience constantly compare her to another character. For all the reasons I state above.

 

[Limonade]

Actually, he confirmed she is MJ. He said she wasn't Mary Jane. This illustrates the entire issue being debated here.

Frankly, her role was so tiny I wonder what discussion we would have, if any, but for the MJ reveal. I feel like Michelle would get as much attention as Betty Brant if she were just Michelle.

I don't get that. I mean yeah it gets us talking about MJ. But is that really something Marvel/Sony wants us to be doing?

Especially over a character that is pretty insignificant if they don't decide to pursue a straight translation of Mary Jane from the comics. Also, a waste of a talented actress, imo.

 

[Faith_Cassidy]

Actually, he confirmed she is MJ. He said she wasn't Mary Jane. This illustrates the entire issue being debated here.

Frankly, her role was so tiny I wonder what discussion we would have, if any, but for the MJ reveal. I feel like Michelle would get as much attention as Betty Brant if she were just Michelle.

Lol Maybe she wouldn't have gotten much love or attention here but the actress has gotten plenty of love from critics and fans elsewhere. I've seen more than few people say the MJ reveal wasn't necessary...they enjoyed her regardless.

Yeah, but as I talk about above, you can be very different yet still a reinterpretation of a character. And if they want her to be viewed as a separate original character...again...don't give her a name that makes your audience constantly compare her to another character. For all the reasons I state above.

And here's the thing...despite Feige saying she isn't Mary Jane, he still agreed to the MJ nickname which can only mean he doesn't want her to be seen as a completely separate character. That goes to my point about there ultimately being some similarity, even if the characters themselves are different.

 

[terry78]

They're leaving themselves a loophole right now. They can easily bring on another chick as Mary Jane and have Michelle be short for ****ing Michelle Jennifer or something as a fourth wall fake out.

 

[Limonade]

They're leaving themselves a loophole right now. They can easily bring on another chick as Mary Jane and have Michelle be short for ****ing Michelle Jennifer or something as a fourth wall fake out.

Yeah. Michelle could still be Mary Jane as many people end up changing their names as they enter show business. So that is all in the realm of possibility.

 

[X Knight]

Let's look at it this way: Bane in TDKR is a reinvented version of Bane. Does he share the same broad strokes similarities with comic Bane? Yeah. He spent a lot of time in prison, has a funny mask, is really strong, and broke Batman's back.

After that, he starts to turn into pretty different interpretation. The same thing could be said of the original 60's Mr.Freeze, and the Batman TAS Mr. Freeze. Aside from the weapon, they're nearly different characters. But they still share some things. They're reinterpretations. They share similarities, but are still based on an existing character.

Now, someone like, say...Killer Crock, I would not say is based on Bane, despite having similar characteristics in broad strokes (strong bad guy, hates Batman), he's an original character.

If Zendaya was a reimagining of Mary Jane, she would still be based on Mary Jane. Her character will ultimately have similar characteristics to Mary Jane. If she's an original character, she could have nothing in common outside being a love interest.

So they're still two different things. In one case, a character is based on an existing figure, in the other, they're not. So we have two people saying two different things.

To clarify: There's a reason I'm focusing on this aside from semantics. It's because while reimagining and original characters can seem to be nearly the same things at times (TAS Freeze is nearly completely different from his original character outside his weapon), it comes down to execution.

If you say you're reimagining the character, I come in with certain preconceived notions. Now, obviously these notions are stronger depending on the popularity of the character. Nobody gave a damn about Freeze before TAS reimagined him, so no one cared how they interpreted him. People were a bit more fond of Bane, so Nolan didn't change Bane as much as TAS changed Freeze. But in both cases, I still had certain expectations regarding these characters. I expect them to behave in a certain way to an extent, because I have a preconceived notion of who they are based on.

With an original character...you can do whatever you want, because I have no preconceived ideas of how they should act or behave.

But an important thing you DON'T want to do with an original character...is somehow come up a way to get your audience member to constantly associate them with a character they're similar to. And a popular character at that. Say I'm the guy who creates Killer Crock. I'm not going to say that his name is Killer Crock...but sometimes people call him The Lizard. I don't want people to constantly think of another popular villain who is visually similar to my creation...though in execution very different from the character I've created. It starts comparisons that really aren't fair, and doesn't let my audience judge my character on it's own merits, instead, they'll be constantly comparing it to this other existing character.

That's not a good thing to do with an original character.

Which is why Marvel needs to pull the trigger on what they're doing with this character. If she's Michelle, call her Michelle. Don't reference her as MJ anymore, and let her stand on her own. You want her to be a reimagined Mary Jane? Do that then. Make her full name be Michelle Mary Jane Watson, or something of the stort, and do your version of Mary Jane.

But do one or the other. Don't do both.

Bingo!!

As another example, take Smallville, which I am watching through the whole series now. Smallville is a reinvention of the Superman characters, story, and mythos. It does its own thing and changes stuff, for better or worse, but overall, it's familiar in the broad strokes. Clark Kent at the end of the day still feels like Clark. Familiar elements are still present.

And it's also another example of creating an original character. Chloe Sullivan was created for the show. In the early seasons, she sort of acts as a proxy/fill in for Lois Lane, as she fulfills the inquisitive investigative reporter role ( and romantic interest role ).

HOWEVER, Chloe is NOT a reinvention of Lois or meant to be her replacement. Chloe does NOT have Lois as her middle name or reveal that her nickname is "Lo" or something. Chloe doesn't become Clark's main, destined LI.

Chloe is revealed to be Lois' cousin, but Lois herself is introduced as a character later on and she takes her rightful place as Clark's one true LI. as Lois should be.

Because of that, I have no problem with Chloe as an original character for the show. I WOULD have a problem if she was meant to be Lois' replacement and started "taking" Lois' name, nickname, etc., or if she became Clark's destined LI.

 

[jmc]

And here's the thing...despite Feige saying she isn't Mary Jane, he still agreed to the MJ nickname which can only mean he doesn't want her to be seen as a completely separate character. That goes to my point about there ultimately being some similarity, even if the characters themselves are different.

The problem is there's nothing about her which is even remotely similar. I'd argue the Liz character has more rights to use the MJ nickname than Michelle based purely on character similarity.

 

[X Knight]

Going off of what Watts said, Daley & Goldstein, who were hired before Watts & his writing partner, were not involved past the first draft. So Daley is speaking from a point of the creative process that is probably 2 years old. Given it's highly unlikely Daley & Goldstein will return or have input in the sequel, I don't think his original intention or opinion is relevant anymore.


Wheras Feige & Pascals comments are current, saying Michelle is not Mary Jane and will not end up as Mary Jane. Seems to me that decision is made.


I think a way to work with this confusing "Michelle/MJ-but-not-Mary-Jane" situation would be to do two things:
1. Use it as a Red Herring going forward. In film 2 Aunt May is trying to set Pete up the niece/daughter of one of her friends, and tell Pete her name is "MJ". Pete thinks she's referring to Michelle and does his best to avoid it because, well Michelle hasnt't exactly been the friendliest girl so far. But eventually he is railroaded into the date and, to his surprise and relief, it's actually Mary Jane - "Face it tiger, etc..."


Not to leave Michelle existing as just a Red Herring, and maybe I'm trading one affront to purists for another, but:

2. Have it be revealed that she is actually Felicia Hardy. She and her father, a professional jewel thief, are laying low in Queens under assumed names. This plays into why she has no friends, she's new & moves around a lot. Maybe she knows her fathers situation, or maybe he told her he works for the Gov, either way she has something to hide (something she recognises in Peter) so keeps to herself a lot.

This also gives the MCU another female character that can actually get in on the action, rather than just be the friend/girlfriend who is in peril and has to be saved.

ah, interesting. I didn't know that about the writer's involvement.

and you do put forth interesting scenarios about how they could handle the character.

 

[The Guard]

Am I the only one who kind of just doesn't care?

The character is a bundle of boring clichés thus far.

Maybe they'll go some ugly duckling route or something and her model name will be "Mary Jane Watson" or something, but thus far, there's very little reason to care either way.

 

[Faith_Cassidy]

The problem is there's nothing about her which is even remotely similar. I'd argue the Liz character has more rights to use the MJ nickname than Michelle based purely on character similarity.

I think you need to read my last few posts again. It may be a problem for some fans but that's clearly not how the writers saw it.

 

[psylockolussus]

This Michelle reinvention is lame. I guess Kirsten Dunst will remain as the only Mary Jane that appeared in the big screen.

 

[Mistah K88]

... so why did she have her name as a header on the film? Or why is she even on the poster... she shows up a couple of scenes to say "you suck" to Peter and Ned, that's like ALL she does. She was just...there. Sure they could develop her in future films, but there was barely anything there... so it's like having a clean slate. Which I guess is true since she is the "John Blake" of this film series.

 

[YoungBlood]

... so why did she have her name as a header on the film? Or why is she even on the poster... she shows up a couple of scenes to say "you suck" to Peter and Ned, that's like ALL she does. She was just...there. Sure they could develop her in future films, but there was barely anything there... so it's like having a clean slate. Which I guess is true since she is the "John Blake" of this film series.

If anything Ned should have been on the poster since he had more screen time than Michelle.

 

[Ozbridge]

Z has 43 million followers on IG and 8.3 million on Twitter. In comparison Marvel has 13 million on IG and 5 million on Twitter (Marvel Studio has 2.1 million and 254k respectively). Putting her on poster (and 4th billing) is a smart decision. Her name sells.

 

[GeckoMoria]

It's not a big deal so don't try to make it a big deal. They have placed themselves in aposition to go either way. They can introduce a more classical MJ or they can make her the love interest and make her better than Dunst who was plain awful

Don't blow this out of proportion.

 

[Enriquespy]

I'm not american, so I don't know how famous is Zendaya actually? I had't heard of her until this thread.

 

[Faith_Cassidy]

Zendaya is the most popular young adult in this movie. I'm sure that wasn't lost on Sony/Marvel when they decided to cast her and promote her as much as they have, despite having only a small role. And they are buiding towards more with the character, so featuring her more in promotion makes sense from that standpoint as well.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Am I the only one who kind of just doesn't care?

The character is a bundle of boring clichés thus far.

Maybe they'll go some ugly duckling route or something and her model name will be "Mary Jane Watson" or something, but thus far, there's very little reason to care either way.

I enjoyed her. She's got a natural screen presence and she played the part well. I'm interested to see how her part grows.