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

[Frodo]

Why does it need to be a surprise? Look at Ledger's reveal as the Joker: straight up honesty from the beginning and they rode the wave of rage that came with it, confident that they would be vindicated in their choice of actor.

I think what happened here is that they knew yet again they were going in a direction that fans probably didn't want but hoped that by keeping it a surprise, that Zendaya would have won people over to the change by the time it was revealed. Which is what happened here and it's absolutely fine in my opinion. Zendaya was a highlight for me.

But to me it's absolutely clear that there was an element of fear here. They understandably wanted to protect a young actress from the level of criticism that Shailene Woodley faced and rightfully so.

I'm fine with the surprise element but I agree with you analysis. The reality is fanboys did freak out , flame each other, and cause such a stink it at even the concept of MJ being played by a minority.

Now, to be fair, I don't think that the same people complaining about the surprise reveal are the same ones who didn't like the idea of MJ being played by Z all together. That's actually heartening because its not complaining about the actresses race.

At the same time fans can't rewrite history and pretend there wasn't a fanboy backlash to the idea of Zendeya playing MJ .

 

[Faith_Cassidy]

Why does it need to be a surprise? Look at Ledger's reveal as the Joker: straight up honesty from the beginning and they rode the wave of rage that came with it, confident that they would be vindicated in their choice of actor.

I think what happened here is that they knew yet again they were going in a direction that fans probably didn't want but hoped that by keeping it a surprise, that Zendaya would have won people over to the change by the time it was revealed. Which is what happened here and it's absolutely fine in my opinion. Zendaya was a highlight for me.

But to me it's absolutely clear that there was an element of fear here. They understandably wanted to protect a young actress from the level of criticism that Shailene Woodley faced and rightfully so.

I'm not saying it needed to be a surpise but it wouldn't be the first time such a ploy was used. It's way more common than some posters seem to think. And with this character, in particular, keeping it a surprise actually played into the narrative. You don't put a reveal near the end of the movie unless you want it to be a surprise. Just coming out and saying, "oh yeah she's playing MJ" kinda ruins that.

It's also important to note that the MJ reveal was leaked months ago and it actually created a lot of good buzz for the movie on social media, yet Zendaya and everyone else still denied it.

 

[lililatigresse]

She is their character.
Marvel can do whatever it wants with her.

Perfectly said.

 

[YoungBlood]

The Ally Sheedy wannabe wasn't a bad character, she was a mediocre character created from a bad idea that should have been play straight.

 

[chaseter]

Zendaya was the worst character in the movie and her MJ reveal at the end was cringeworthy.

 

[Mysteryman]

These forums are not the end all and be all for buzz.
A negative reaction here doesn't mean there wasn't excitement for the film among general audiences.

 

[Faith_Cassidy]

You think that lol

Check out this tweet from the source who first reported the reveal..

https://***********/TheWrap/status/766398418025533440

Keep in mind that this is a site that rarely get more than 100 retweets on their articles yet this one has over 2k retweets and likes and "Mary Jane" isn't even in the title. Lol The actress brings with her a lot of fans, many of whom are now MJ fans or at the very least, want to know more about the character now that Zendaya is playing her (or a version of her). I'm sure this wasn't lost on Feige when he and Watts cast her.

 

[Alana´s Gun]

zendaya was great. One of the biggest laughs of the film came from her. She'll make an excellent foil to Peter's silly "accidental" humor with her snarky quick witted retorts. It will be interesting to see where she goes from here.

 

[fuflipflops]

and all of that just makes me, as a Mary Jane Watson fan, dislike and resent this new character Michelle even more.

First, I had very little interest in the character of Michelle based on what I've seen and read. Her looks don't appeal to me nor do her behavior and personality appeal to me.

Second, I dislike her even more if she's meant to be the main LI of the MCU Spidey films. Peter already has several iconic LIs - no need to invent an original character for that role. It would like saying Lois is so overused as a LI in Superman films, so the next Superman franchise will feature a brand new original character to fill that role.

Third, and this is the final slap/insult, she's not only an original character who looks and acts nothing like Mary Jane Watson, but for some reason, she is now "stealing" those iconic initials "MJ." And by giving the MJ initials to Michelle, that pretty much precludes them from ever using the real Mary Jane Watson in the future. So that makes me dislike this new character Michelle even more.

That Feige interview confirms to me that they know perfectly well what the initials "MJ" mean to the Spidey mythos. And that makes Michelle feel to me like an unworthy "usurper." An impostor who has not only stolen Mary Jane Watson's position as Peter's main LI but also stolen her initials and thus by extension the history and importance she has to Peter's life.

And as a Mary Jane Watson fan, who finally wanted to see the character done properly on screen, and after all the **** MJ fans have gone through in the comics for years, this whole Michelle situation just pisses me off to no end.

exactly. the fact that he actually said full stop that they're using mj's name and arc with peter but with a different character is bizarre and makes me resent michelle, which sucks because if she wasn't surrounded by all of this she would've been fine as a character. not my favorite, but ok enough.

 

[slimshady247]

zendaya was great. One of the biggest laughs of the film came from her. She'll make an excellent foil to Peter's silly "accidental" humor with her snarky quick witted retorts. It will be interesting to see where she goes from here.

 

[Frodo]

It seems alot of the complaints about the film are more from a fanboy/purist pov ,and from those who followed every step of production as opposed to the vast majority of people who've come to the film "clean" for all tense and purposes.

That's a positive in my book. It seems that alot the issues that some people have with the film are execution of peripheral characters as opposed to fundamental elements of the story and the main characters.

It hasn't been since 2004 that you've had a Spiderman film which isn't divisive, or flawed in a deep fundamental way.

 

[Grootster]

zendaya was great. One of the biggest laughs of the film came from her. She'll make an excellent foil to Peter's silly "accidental" humor with her snarky quick witted retorts. It will be interesting to see where she goes from here.

I agree! I don't understand why some people are saying she was terrible. I get the complaint that she wasn't like the comic version of MJ, but as a character, she was wonderful. I liked Gwen Stacy, but Michelle is probably now my favorite Spider-man female lead, and probably one of my favorite female characters in a movie recently. She only had a handful of scenes in the movie, but all of them were loaded with personality.

 

[Alana´s Gun]

I agree! I don't understand why some people are saying she was terrible. I get the complaint that she wasn't like the comic version of MJ, but as a character, she was wonderful. I liked Gwen Stacy, but Michelle is probably now my favorite Spider-man female lead, and probably one of my favorite female characters in a movie recently. She only had a handful of scenes in the movie, but all of them were loaded with personality.

Yeah. I mean I get the idea that she's a departure from the norm but these aren't recreations of the comics. They're adaptations, the source material
Is a jumping point not a rigid guideline and people on this forum and elsewhere need to appreciate that.

If you want to see things exactly how the comics are, read a comic. Take the pages and flip them real fast so they move. These are films adapting stories from the 60's to 2017, there are going to be changes to the character to reflect the more diverse and different world of today.

Appreciate that someone is trying to move Spider-Man ahead instead of constantly looking at what he was.

Michelle added very little to the movie but the little she was in made me smile.

 

[Enriquespy]

I loved her as a character,

even if I'm not fully in favour of the identity they may or may not give her, it's no biggie for me.

 

[fionabinona]

the movie and her charcter if i had a complaint aimed in her direction was how little she was in ti and that we saw 99% of her scenes already in trailers and promos. The whole MJ part doesnt bother me just the way it was handled in such a throw away line. Also have Zendaya go around doing press for the movie repeatedly denying she was playing MJ seems a bit ridiculous now

 

[Grootster]

Yeah. I mean I get the idea that she's a departure from the norm but these aren't recreations of the comics. They're adaptations, the source material
Is a jumping point not a rigid guideline and people on this forum and elsewhere need to appreciate that.

If you want to see things exactly how the comics are, read a comic. Take the pages and flip them real fast so they move. These are films adapting stories from the 60's to 2017, there are going to be changes to the character to reflect the more diverse and different world of today.

Appreciate that someone is trying to move Spider-Man ahead instead of constantly looking at what he was.

Michelle added very little to the movie but the little she was in made me smile.

Exactly.

I enjoy when movies stick close to the source material, but there is such a thing as sticking too close, to the point that the movie becomes stale. Aside from that, it hinders the filmmakers ability to be creative if they just have to rehash the exact same thing from a comic beat for beat.

 

[X Knight]

there will always be some degree of change, even some degree of mixing and matching from various versions of a character or from multiple characters. That's to be expected with these adaptations. Anyone expecting full 100% accuracy or faithfulness is just setting themselves up for failure.

However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. And that line should be - after the changes, after the mixing/matching, does this character still retain the core, spirit, essence or whatever you want to call it of the character? Even with the new take on this character, is the character still familiar and recognizable?

If you make such drastic changes to a character that he/she feels like essentially a different character, then you have crossed that line, imo.

For example, let's say they are doing a new, updated version of Smallville - a new tv series to focus on young Clark Kent. Now, say the character description of Clark comes out. Clark sports a green Mohawk, leather jacket, and shades. He's a rebellious youth who loves to cause trouble, play pranks, and defy authority as he tries to figure out his place in life and figure out just who or what he is.

Now, that may be the "all new all different" Clark Kent. But does that sound like Clark Kent to you? It certainly doesn't to me, and I'd have no interest in that version of Clark or that show.

 

[Faith_Cassidy]

Yeah. I mean I get the idea that she's a departure from the norm but these aren't recreations of the comics. They're adaptations, the source material
Is a jumping point not a rigid guideline and people on this forum and elsewhere need to appreciate that.

If you want to see things exactly how the comics are, read a comic. Take the pages and flip them real fast so they move. These are films adapting stories from the 60's to 2017, there are going to be changes to the character to reflect the more diverse and different world of today.

Appreciate that someone is trying to move Spider-Man ahead instead of constantly looking at what he was.

Michelle added very little to the movie but the little she was in made me smile.

I'm sorry, I don't want to be insensitive but this amused me.

Seriously though, I completely understand the frustration in not getting a comic accurate MJ. We haven't seen that yet, despite this being the third live-action adaptation. And I agree that Spidey joining the MCU was the perfect chance to finally get "classic MJ". I just don't think an adaptation *has* to stick to the source material or else... nor do I expect that at this point.

And I honestly do believe Feige is making these changes with good intentions. I don't think he's being fueled by any dislike for comic MJ. I see this as tptb taking inspiration from the comics but doing so in a way that allows them to try new things. And I'm personally intrigued. Maybe not so much with the name change because I still don't fully get the point of that. But things like racebending and exploring new interpretations of characters, I'm all for.

 

[fuflipflops]

there will always be some degree of change, even some degree of mixing and matching from various versions of a character or from multiple characters. That's to be expected with these adaptations. Anyone expecting full 100% accuracy or faithfulness is just setting themselves up for failure.

However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. And that line should be - after the changes, after the mixing/matching, does this character still retain the core, spirit, essence or whatever you want to call it of the character? Even with the new take on this character, is the character still familiar and recognizable?

If you make such drastic changes to a character that he/she feels like essentially a different character, then you have crossed that line, imo.

For example, let's say they are doing a new, updated version of Smallville - a new tv series to focus on young Clark Kent. Now, say the character description of Clark comes out. Clark sports a green Mohawk, leather jacket, and shades. He's a rebellious youth who loves to cause trouble, play pranks, and defy authority as he tries to figure out his place in life and figure out just who or what he is.

Now, that may be the "all new all different" Clark Kent. But does that sound like Clark Kent to you? It certainly doesn't to me, and I'd have no interest in that version of Clark or that show.

yep. or even going back to the TASM movies, and how so many people thought peter was too cool and a hipster and lacked the essence of the character. or how people didn't like kirsten's mj and rightfully complained about it. that's a fair opinion to have, but somehow we're not supposed to criticize this one, lord knows why. it's always just "it's different but it's okay you're delusional if you're expecting 100% accuracy." like, i don't think anyone is legitimately demanding that.

 

[First Avenger]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/07/08/spider-man-homecomings-5-biggest-wtf-questions

 

[The Joker]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/07/08/spider-man-homecomings-5-biggest-wtf-questions

Quote the important part;

Kevin Feige: “We never even looked at it as a big reveal necessarily but more of just a fun homage to his past adventures and his past love. She's not Mary-Jane Watson. She never was Mary-Jane Watson. She was always this new high school character, Michelle"

 

[X Knight]

yep. or even going back to the TASM movies, and how so many people thought peter was too cool and a hipster and lacked the essence of the character. or how people didn't like kirsten's mj and rightfully complained about it. that's a fair opinion to have, but somehow we're not supposed to criticize this one, lord knows why. it's always just "it's different but it's okay you're delusional if you're expecting 100% accuracy." like, i don't think anyone is legitimately demanding that.

and that was my biggest problem with TASM Peter. he came across as an unlikeable selfish jerk. Hell, he couldn't even keep a promise he made to a dying man - after all, the best promises are the ones you never intend to keep, tee hee.

And that's also what makes me mad about Homecoming, because Tom's Peter looks to be more inline with how I view Peter Parker. it's just now that the rest of his world and supporting cast look and feel so unfamiliar and unrecognizable.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Guys she's not Mary Jane, this discussion is irrelevant.

 

[X Knight]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/07/08/spider-man-homecomings-5-biggest-wtf-questions

Quote the important part;

Kevin Feige: “We never even looked at it as a big reveal necessarily but more of just a fun homage to his past adventures and his past love. She's not Mary-Jane Watson. She never was Mary-Jane Watson. She was always this new high school character, Michelle"

well, that's a pretty dumb way to pay homage to a classic, iconic character, imo.

She's not Mary Jane Watson, but we are going to give her the nickname/initials MJ because it's fun!!

 

[Alana´s Gun]

there will always be some degree of change, even some degree of mixing and matching from various versions of a character or from multiple characters. That's to be expected with these adaptations. Anyone expecting full 100% accuracy or faithfulness is just setting themselves up for failure.

However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. And that line should be - after the changes, after the mixing/matching, does this character still retain the core, spirit, essence or whatever you want to call it of the character? Even with the new take on this character, is the character still familiar and recognizable?

If you make such drastic changes to a character that he/she feels like essentially a different character, then you have crossed that line, imo.

For example, let's say they are doing a new, updated version of Smallville - a new tv series to focus on young Clark Kent. Now, say the character description of Clark comes out. Clark sports a green Mohawk, leather jacket, and shades. He's a rebellious youth who loves to cause trouble, play pranks, and defy authority as he tries to figure out his place in life and figure out just who or what he is.

Now, that may be the "all new all different" Clark Kent. But does that sound like Clark Kent to you? It certainly doesn't to me, and I'd have no interest in that version of Clark or that show.

Well then you don't want diversity. Classic Clark Kent is cool but when we read comics we often have to take a leap of faith and take a change to see where it goes. Perhaps this new idea will become the new classic.

There is no line with creativity and art, this is such an ODD though process. These aren't remakes. Let the writers and filmmakers take their risk and if st the end of the day it doesn't stick, ok, try again somewhere else.

How can we all here say we appreciate comics and films but then jump on every change we personally don't like. I see a movie and have a conception of what will happen, sometimes I'm right often I'm wrong, just because things don't go the way I perceive them to be doesn't make the choice an error.

We've really got to let go of some of these very very rigid ideas of what these characters can be. Once we do that we're going to get a lot of weird stuff but maybe JUST MAYBE something great and new will come out of it not just the same old nostalgia "i recognize that!" Moments.