Wasn't trying to slam your writing abilities. lol.
Lol. WarriorDreamer is correct in saying that the dialogue was just a way of illustrating Mary Jane's personality verbatim (a direct representation of the comics), not that I think MJ should talk like she's right out of the 60's (maybe with the exception of the Jackpot line). Can you dig it?
Yes, the character of Gwen Stacy changed a lot once Ditko quit. After that, every character was supermodel handsome/beautiful and all constantly spoke in the same trendy slang, dropping sitcomy one-liners and zingers every other sentence.
Wait I'm confused. I'm sorry, but I really do not understand what it is that you are trying to argue. Didn't you just say that Webb's Gwen was nothing like Stan's Gwen because (you think) that she used a 'zinger', something that 616 Gwen was supposedly incapable of? Now you are trying to argue that every character that Stan wrote used 'zingers' and 'one-liners', but doesn't that contradict your previous argument?
What I'm saying is, 50 years have passed and, as Digific writer said, a lot of these earlier portrayals didn't exactly do these characters a lot of favours. In updating and adapting source material (especially from 50 years ago), unless it's a period piece, you need to keep the core of the character and update the rest accordingly. Sometimes, that requires completely revising the character (I don't see anyone complaining about the complete makeover they've given Max Dillon or Harry Osborn).
I completely agree with what's bolded, but I don't see how keeping the core of the character equates to completely revising the character. Do you honestly believe that Ultimate comics retained the core of 616 MJ's character?
As I've said before I couldn't care less about Electro. He is nowhere near as integral or significant to the Spider-Man Mythos as much as MJ is. I agree in the sense that it seems that they've given him a more complex and updated origin story. If I cared more about the 616 version of the character, then I suppose I would think differently. What complete makeover have they given Harry Osborn though? So far he looks like the troubled rich boy from the comics. We don't really know much about the character yet aside from being an old friend of Peter's. How can you make a judgement like that without having seen the movie? That's almost like what people have been assuming about Webb's and Shailene's MJ.
I'm not saying that MJ should be a carbon copy of the way that she is depicted in the 616 universe, but why do you believe that this is a character that
NEEDS to be completely rewritten or revised in order to be updated? Imo, 616 MJ is the second-most fully developed and three-dimensional character in the Spider-Man mythos.
So far, here are all of the arguments that I've heard against the 616 portrayal of MJ on these threads:
Some people have tried to argue that 616 MJ is/was not characterized as being 'sexy' or somewhat of a 'bombshell' - that the version doesn't exist, which couldn't be further from the truth.
I've seen some try to argue that MJ being "sexy" or the "bombshell" (among other things) is outdated and/or lends nothing to the actual character (apart giving the boys a nice piece of a** to gawk at) or diminishes the character- which is cool. If that's what you are choosing to believe, that's fine. Imo, all of the evidence from the 40+ years of comic book history points to the contrary, and that her "sex appeal" and flirtatiousness played a significant and undeniable role in her character development. Beyond that, I still don't understand why a woman being portrayed as being overtly sexual (as 616 MJ was) prevents her from being three dimensional and multivalent (having wants, likes, dislikes, goals, aspirations, personality, etc.). Once again, I would hope no one is saying that MJ's
only characteristic should be her status as the 'bombshell', but that doesn't negate the significance of the character's seductiveness and flirtatiousness. And there's a big difference between wanting the actress who portrays the character (whether or not said actress is Shailene) to convey that sexiness realistically (along with the feistiness and down to earth sense of humor) and arguing that the actress should look like some photoshopped plastic surgery Barbie doll supermodel or an idealized Mcfarlane/ J Scott Campbell drawing, which
no one could ever live up to. I also don't understand why this version of the character is so outdated that it needs to be rewritten, but I suppose that's also a matter of personal preference.
Some have tried to argue that other versions of the character are superior to the 616 version of the character because being sexy is not a facet of the character's portrayal and personality and that Webb should or has drawn from one of those various incarnations. Once again, if that's what you believe, fine it's just an opinion, but this goes back to my previous argument: Why does MJ being portrayed as having "sex appeal" prevent her from being three-dimensional? And why are these alternate versions of the character almost automatically perceived as being "more three dimensional" because being sexy or seductive has nothing to do with their characters? Does being sexy diminish Felicia Hardy's character, Selina Kyle's character, or Emma Frost's character? Why does it ruin or simplify 616 MJ's so much so that it is an aspect of the character that
NEEDS TO BE gotten rid of? If that's what you believe, please explain.
Some say that they think that 616 MJ should be rewritten because she comes across as being a condescending B, or that she did initially. Which again is fine.This is another matter of personal preference and I'm sure some people have said the same of Lois Lane, but nothing from the comics (how the other characters have responded to MJ) lends any credence to that belief, or makes it THE FIRST IMPRESSION that MJ gave the other characters (particularly Peter). If you dislike 616 MJ's personality and would prefer something different, okay by me.
And now the 616 Gwen Stacy/ TSSM Gwen Stacy/Webb Gwen Stacy argument, which I've never really seen anyone debate before. For the most part, I thought that this was something that most of us would agree/have agreed on despite our differences of opinion with regards to MJ, but I guess I was wrong. I suppose arguing that Webb's Gwen is absolutely nothing like 616 Gwen debunks the argument that some would prefer a predominantly 616 or TSSM inspired version of MJ based upon Webb's version of Gwen.
I'm getting the impression that a lot of people just dance around the issue (trying to discredit other people's arguments- saying practically anything to prove a point -I'm not sure exactly what point that is- even if they contradict themselves) instead of addressing it directly.
Please I am genuinely curious. You say that you do not have a preference for any particular incarnation of this character, yet you've clearly stated that Ultimate MJ, Spider-Man loves Mary Jane MJ, and Raimi's MJ are superior. Why exactly? And please don't give me the generic statement that 'they are three-dimensional multivalent characters with fully developed personalities with likes, dislikes, goals, etc.' because so is 616 MJ (if not more). Give me specifics. And what is wrong with preferring the 616 mainstream version of the character- how is that any different from you clearly preferring some of the other incarnations? And please don't say that you are tired of people expecting her to be portrayed the same way in every given medium, because I have never argued for that. And for goodness sake please do not tie this back to the Woodley casting because this particular debate really has nothing to do with her. I am trying to see this from your pov, but it's becoming increasingly difficult.
t:
