Sequels What happened to Kirsten?

spideyman101

Civilian
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
912
Reaction score
0
Points
11
In Spider-Man 1 she looked really good. In Spider-Man 2 she did as well! In Spider-Man 3 she looked horrible! It especially didn't help that Raimi put her in granny clothes!
 
A magical process known as aging.
 
Let's put it this way; she looked very good in Marie Antionette, and that released around the same time, right? Well in Spidey 3 she looks horrible...
 
Different photographer for SM1, might be one thing. I personally think she was very cute when she did SM1 and back in those days, but as she grew older...she partied harder and I think that has aged her fast, especially by Hollywood standards.

However she did look fairly good in Marie Antionette and though I never saw it, she looked all right in the trailer for that Cameron Crowe movie a few years back.

But, from the trailer I've seen of "Lose Your Friends and Alienate People," she looked worse than she did in SM2/3.

I think it may have to do with how she is photgraphed. Also, keep in mind it was the studio's people (or whoever they hired) that did her hair and make-up in SM1 while it was her own stylists in SM2/3. My guess is they just struggle with the red hair, when they should have left the look from SM1 alone.

Also, she may not have been dressed as nice, but she looked more healthy in SM3, I thought.
 
I thought she looked good in 1, okay in 3, and worst in 2.

She's not ugly, just not OMG hot.
 
She was really thin in spiderman 2 and that non deep red of hers made her look less attractive. Also quite frankly she looked depressed doing sm2 and sm3.
 
Another Kirsten thread, come on people...learn to read? I see people want to feel special in this forum.
 
In Spider-Man 1 she looked really good. In Spider-Man 2 she did as well! In Spider-Man 3 she looked horrible! It especially didn't help that Raimi put her in granny clothes!

All i can say is, if this is "horrible", then give me plenty:

Spiderman3_Mary_Jane_2.jpg
 
She was at her best in the first movie, after that....bye bye.
 
That picture above has been photoshopped...
 
maybe they can replace her with this lovely. wink wink!


 
Is it weird that the woman didn't catch my attention, but the link asking "Do fish get thirsty?" did? Lol.


I always thought Bryce Dallas Howard would've been a better Mary Jane Watson...granted, for the small parts she did have as Gwen Stacy, she was good...but I think they should've had Bryce be MJ...plus, Bryce is a natural red-head, right?
 
that's the irony of Spider-Man 3: Bryce is a natural red head! lol while Kirsten is a blonde!!!
 
However she did look fairly good in Marie Antionette and though I never saw it, she looked all right in the trailer for that Cameron Crowe movie a few years back.

Elizabethtown. I saw it a couple of weeks ago, and I was shocked at how good she looked in comparison to say...SM2. And this movie came out just a year after SM2.

CaptainStacy said:
All i can say is, if this is "horrible", then give me plenty:

Agreed. I thought she looked pretty good in SM3. Leaps and bounds over the previous one.
 
Agreed CaptainStacy. I don't know why everyone always says she looks horrible. They must have pretty high standards.
 
Agreed CaptainStacy. I don't know why everyone always says she looks horrible. They must have pretty high standards.

High standards for MJ's representation you say? HOW DARE US!!! :cwink:

Now IF the Writers/Directors could just have the "same" high standards for the character as a whole... appearance, writing, characterization, etc.... and expand that to ALL the rich cast of characters in the World of Spider-Man.

Ahhhh... to Dream.
 
High standards for MJ's representation you say? HOW DARE US!!! :cwink:

Now IF the Writers/Directors could just have the "same" high standards for the character as a whole... appearance, writing, characterization, etc.... and expand that to ALL the rich cast of characters in the World of Spider-Man.

Ahhhh... to Dream.

You haven't lost your touch, Slag :hehe:

Dunst's MJ never felt like the comic book MJ, IMO. Not in characterization or appearance.
 
Dunst's MJ never felt like the comic book MJ, IMO. Not in characterization or appearance.

Agreed Joker/Doc. And that is a true pity because MJ is a great character, the true comic MJ that is. Especially when played in conjunction with the greatness that is Gwen Stacy and her pivotal story arc that is center to what is and always will be Spider-Man.

Pity, that the powers that be behind the Dark Knight even recognize Gwen's story arc and borrowed from it profusely for the greatness that was The Dark Knight.

At least the story was told, even if the names and players were changed. As good as that particular story line was in TDK.. I still think the true story arc in ASM would (could) be better.

IF DONE RIGHT.


"Just say YES to a Reboot!"
 
With the juvenile antics and childish mindset that the filmmakers have for these movies (catering to kids like a MoFo), not even the comic book elements would improve it. Because the villains would continue to suffer the most. Treating Spider-Man like he's a Hannah Montana/Ben-10 property is first thing that needs to go, above all else. This is something that (fanboys and Raimi/Marvel/Sony) people just simply don't understand. Any story, character or villain will just get watered-down to its very last compound--to try and make a child giggle. A filmmaker has to know that he's not just making a giant 200 million dollar comic book...just shy of word-bubbles. Thus, is why TDK prevailed on many levels.
"Just say YES to a Reboot!"
Not gonna happen, until they get rid of Tobey and Raimi. They just hired them back. So...:o
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"