The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Who would be the best MJ?

[DigificWriter]

@Super Jim: I understand what you were trying to say, but there's a third choice: abandoning all preconceived notions about MJ's characterization and just letting Webb and Co. present the character as they want to, drawing from whatever sources they want to.

 

[Super Jim]

^ But why go with a third, unproven choice?

Again, going with 616 Gwen has been very positive. To go with 616 Gwen and then not go with 616 MJ, which is the counter-character to 616 Gwen, would be one of the biggest mistakes they could make (maybe not a big as Peter dancing his Saturday Night Fever impersonation in the street - but still pretty bad).

Now they can throw different elements into the character since it doesn't have to be 100% 616 (for example, Gwen in the movies met Peter in high school, not college = big deal and gwen in the movie knows that Peter is Spider-man = big deal), but generally, especially as far as looks go (isn't Gwen with the hair band the best?!), 616 is the best option, not because 616 is the best MJ (though it is), but because it is the best MJ as compared to 616 Gwen!

 

[Vid Electricz]

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?

As I noted, Gwen was initially written as a quiet, sensitive character. After Ditko left, the character (and indeed all the characters) magically became a bit of a livelier trendy, slang-speaking, fountain of one-liners. With Romita doing the art and Lee back in charge of the stories, there was more of a bland "sameness" to everything (No disrespect to Romita).

My argument was, and remains that the Gwen in TASM acts a lot more like Emma Stone than the Gwen Stacy from the 1960's comic books. This is taking not only her sassy teasing of Peter in their first encounter into account, but her overall boldness and assertiveness that 616 Gwen never displayed. Obviously, there were aspects of the comic book character that they translated to screen, but it was by no means a "direct", "faithful" adaptation of the character. They pulled from different sources- this is exactly the point DigificWriter is getting at.

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.

Well, he is the main centerpiece of the film. So he's kind of a big deal.

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.

Shall I begin posting pictures? I just find it funny that such a big deal is made of the actress and direction being taken for a supporting actress and her fidelity to the comics while a supporting actor like Harry (who is also kind of a big deal) bears zero visual resemblance to Harry from the comics and whose character is now a "womanizer" type. Yeah, exactly like 616 Harry from the comics who was more of an oblivious sidekick than anything. The original comics didn't really do Harry Osborn too many favours and he didn't particularly have any real depth (which can be argued of 1960's Gwen and MJ as well). For a feature film in 2013, where we are meant to relate to these characters as real people, they need to be treated as real people, not vaguely defined, sitcom archetypes (hot popular girl, rich roommate, brainy/pretty girl).

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.

Does it? Has it? I'd love to hear about it beyond the "pretty girl hides behind popular girl facade", which we already saw done very effectively in SM1.

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.).

Do you seriously not see how these things work against each other? Why must she be portrayed as overtly sexual? What does it bring to the character or story?

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.

The problem is, that to a majority of fanboys, it may as well be her only characteristic. Everything about the character that's bandied about around here is secondary to how HOT and SEXY she should be.

And again, pray tell, what is the significance of the character's "seductiveness" and "flirtatiousness"? *shudder*

this goes back to my previous argument: Why does MJ being portrayed as having "sex appeal" prevent her from being three-dimensional?

Let's ask this question instead: What does MJ being portrayed as having "sex appeal" really bring to the character/story?

You really have no clue what myself, Vid Electricz, and others have actually been saying, as the above demonstrates. What we're saying basically comes down to this:
There is no 'definitive' portrayal of Mary Jane Watson; the character can and has been portrayed in a myriad of different ways, and it is therefore ridiculous, unfair, and blatantly dismissive to insist that the 616 version of the character is the only one that ought to be in these movies, or that Shailene isn't 'hot enough to be MJ' because she doesn't visually match up with 616 MJ and, based on what we did see of her, isn't being portrayed as the flirty, sexy 'supermodel-type' that the 616 version of the character is.

Ummmm... Vid has stated several times that the character's "sex appeal" is an 'outdated concept' from the 1960's and was something that (he believed) served no purpose other than to please the male fanboys. Although he hasn't fully or directly explained that assertion, proven that sex appeal has no significance in terms of the 616 version of the character, or stated why being 'sexy' prevents 616 MJ from being a multivalent character, which I happen to believe that she is.

Yes, I really have. Over and over and over again, it seems.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ But why go with a third, unproven choice?

Because that's what filmmakers do. They will often take inspiration from a given source and put their own spin on it.

Again, going with 616 Gwen has been very positive. To go with 616 Gwen and then not go with 616 MJ, which is the counter-character to 616 Gwen, would be one of the biggest mistakes they could make (maybe not a big as Peter dancing his Saturday Night Fever impersonation in the street - but still pretty bad).

TASM Gwen is not '616 Gwen'; she's certainly inspired by 616 Gwen, but Webb and Co. have made her a distinctly 'new' character... just as they did with all of the other characters that they've used (and that they're going to use).

 

[Super Jim]

^ Right, but that's what I said. Amazing's Gwen definitely has the look of 616 Gwen. I don't think anyone is arguing that. Yes there are some slight tweaks here and there, like I mentioned how they have Peter and she meeting in high school and she knows his secret, but like I said before... big deal. But Gwen is the blond, hair band wearing, studious, science student; just like in the comic. That's Emma's Gwen and that Gwen is amazing and as close as we're going to get to 616 (very different than what Raimi gave us).

I'm ok with some slight differences as far as MJ's personality. They want to tone down the party girl aspect, ok. They want to make her less flirtatious, ok. But as far as the looks go, in order to contrast with Gwen, they need to use a 616 inspired MJ.

 

[Super Jim]

 

[Spideyfan117]

TASM Gwen is not '616 Gwen'; she's certainly inspired by 616 Gwen, but Webb and Co. have made her a distinctly 'new' character... just as they did with all of the other characters that they've used (and that they're going to use).

I agree with this and with your overall points on the past couple of pages. I think there are some obvious nods to 616 Gwen. But characters must be reinvented in some capacity for any film adapted from previous material. Otherwise, why watch the adaptation when you can just read/watch the original? Marc Webb being fond of The Spectacular Spider-man tv series REALLY shows in the portrayal of Gwen as Peter's intellectual equal.

I really don't understand why, when it comes to Spider-man, so many people demand that something has to be exactly like the 616 version (which is difficult to define anyways considering how many writers have tackled that universe and added to supporting/minor characters' stories over the decades). There are many other sources that may be drawn from and I enjoy a mix of inspiration from those sources in a movie as well as adding some original ideas (which is part of what makes TASM, The Nolan trilogy, and the MCU so entertaining for me). Where Mary Jane is concerned, why is 616 the only source film makers have the permission of fans to adapt (as if they needed their permission)? There are merits to Ultimate MJ's "girl next door" portrayal. Sam Raimi took some inspiration from that version of MJ. Why not a mixture of the "femme fatale" version that so many fanboys clamor for and the Ultimate version? It would make for something more interesting, I think. I'm really just rambling at this point, but the way so many people discuss MJ as only being worthwhile as she is portrayed in the 616 universe is baffling to me.

 

[sl500jazz]

Forget it. Was gonna respond to Vid's post, but I've pretty much already said my piece several times. I'm done.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I don't even know where to begin. Are you seriously now trying to say that Ditko's Gwen was the shy and sensitive character that you were talking about before. If anything I could see you saying that about Romita's Gwen, but Ditko's Gwen??? Have you read the comics with Ditko's and Romita's Gwens?

Yeah, wow. Remember when Emma's Gwen Stacy threw a temper tantrum because she was upset that Peter wasn't paying attention to her like in that panel? Oh wait...she never did.

She was sensitive in that she was prone to extreme bouts of jealousy whenever she thought Peters attentions were diverted from her and shy in that she often was too timid to even approach Peter to speak to him (see the issue with the Looter where they both attend the same science exhibit).

Yes, I am very familiar with the Lee/Ditko/Romita comics. Posting one panel doesn't really prove much.

Yes Webb's Gwen was completely different from Ditko's Gwen, but so was Romita's (which eventually became the version that most associate with the character), and not for the reasons that you mentioned.

And...I'm not even going to address the fact that you think that (because of Romita's influence) all of the characters became bland and indistinguishable from one another in terms of characterization and personality. You are entitled to your own opinion about the Spider-Man comics.

No. I made it quite clear that it was because of Ditko's absence (for those of you that don't know, Ditko was practically writing the book at the time).

Right, and this argument has nothing to do with whether or not Shailene Woodley bears a physical resemblance to the character. It really has nothing to do with Shailene at all.

Right. It has nothing to do with hordes of overzealous fanbois railing against this actress because they felt that she didn't physically qualify for the role.

Oblivious sidekick??? Really? I'm not even gonna argue about Harry Osborn's character. I just think that saying that Harry Osborn has been given a "complete makeover" is a bit premature when we haven't even seen the film yet. I feel the same way about what people have said about Webb's interpretation of MJ.

Yes. Read the Romita/Lee comics. Harry's the goofy, bumbling, oblivious roommate. We know enough/have seen enough set pics to know that he bears no similarities to the comic book Harry aside from him being the rich son of Norman Osborn.

And aren't you trying to argue against these so-called 'sitcom archetypes', so how is making Harry Osborn the "womanizer" type any different/ more relevant to 2013? Doesn't that contradict the whole argument you've been making about Webb ridding these characters of 'lazy' 'catch-all' archetypes and descriptors?

Did I say I endorsed it? Did I say I thought Webb was a skilled film maker? Looks like the answer to both is a resounding no. There goes that argument!

MJ from the Raimi movies was a far cry from 616 MJ, and imo a very sloppily handled character overall who was just the constant damsel in distress in SM1 as opposed to the seemingly confident, vivacious, and feisty character that 616 MJ was.

She was the sad, lonely, confused young woman who lived in an "abusive" hoursehold who hid behind the exterior of the pretty, popular, party girl. That sounds about right. How would that have been improved by making her a "sexy, promiscuous, flirtatious bomshell"? (I feel dumb even typing that) Do tell.

No, I'm afraid I don't. Saying that a woman (or a female character) being 'sexy', 'flirtatious' or overtly sexual somehow prevents her from having substance and/or being multivalent imo is a very 'dated' thought process that's practically right out of Victorian England or 1950's America.

I understand that women are held up to unrealistic standards of beauty in our society ( most notably the photoshopped and airbrushed magazine covers of rail thin plastic surgery supermodels). But, there's a big difference between unrealistic standards of beauty, and 'real women' being sexy and just as flirtatious (or even as promiscuous) as their male counterparts . I don't think that some people can delineate between the two. If Webb's Harry can be a 'womanizer' (which you clearly have no problem with), what's wrong with MJ being a maneater.

Whoa with the assumptions there. I never said I endorsed the decision to make Harry a "womanizer". There's absolutely nothing wrong with a woman being represented as sexual or promiscuous, but it begs the question: WHAT DOES IT BRING TO THE STORY OR CHARACTER? In this case, what does MJ being a "sexy bombshell" *ugh* bring to the story? Nothing, aside from a bit of juvenile fanservice, ESPECIALLY when that's the main focal point/trait of the character. If you can't/don't already understand this and insist (quite backwardly) that it's a "Victorian mindset", then we'll seriously have to leave it.

I understand that 616 MJ is often simplified to big boobs and red hair. It's a shame (and a sad fact of life) because she is a really complex troubled character, but that doesn't negate the significance of the characters "sex appeal" (among many other things) in terms of her personality, characterization, relationship to other characters, and development. And this argument is purely based on MJ's portrayal within the 616 universe over the past 4 decades- not necessarily that Webb HAS to do this version of the character, nor that Shailene is not a mach for this version of the character and therefore needs to be recast. So please, do not tie this back to those arguments because I am not addressing that now.

Enlighten me as to how this "complex", "troubled character" is somehow enhanced and given depth by being presented as "sexy".

Again, I'd like to note that Webb COULD manage to preserve contrast while completely changing the character. I understand that, and (although I clearly stated a preference) I'm not demanding anything of him. This is mainly an argument meant to illustrate why being sexy is integral to this particular version of the character. Why it plays a role in the character's personality and development and the grand scheme of things without diminishing or simplifying the character.

No you haven't. Again you just ignored the question and tried to flip it around on me. Ive answered your question several times. Now answer mine: How does 616 MJ's (or any female character for that matter) being sexy ultimately diminish her character or prevent her from being multivalent character and having goals, ambitions, wants, likes, dislikes, a fully developed personality etc? That's basically what you were trying to suggest. And I'm not talking about the drawings themselves, this is purely a discussion based on 616 MJ's characterization.

lol. Yes, I really have, several times in fact. Sorry if you glossed over it.

It does dimminish the character because it places an unnecessary emphasis on the character's physicality (which again, brings nothing to the story) and treats her first and foremost as an object to be desired by Peter (and the audience), and as a human being second.

Is it necessary to the character? Absolutely not. Does MJ being a "bombshell" really enhance or bring anything interesting to the character aside from a bit of petty objectification for the wee fanboys in the audience? Nope.

On the contrary, you've not been able to provide any salient, reasonable, points as to why MJ being "sexy" is a necessary trait that brings anything to the character/story that wasn't already done effectively in SM1.

 

[sl500jazz]

^lol. Guess my little edit was a little too late. Stick a fork in me, we can agree to completely disagree, I'm done.

 

[sl500jazz]

Lol might as well just repost everything that I originally said in response to Vid's argument.

Here I go again... I knew that it wouldn't last long.

As I noted, Gwen was initially written as a quiet, sensitive character. After Ditko left, the character (and indeed all the characters) magically became a bit of a livelier trendy, slang-speaking, fountain of one-liners. With Romita doing the art and Lee back in charge of the stories, there was more of a bland "sameness" to everything (No disrespect to Romita).

I don't even know where to begin. Are you seriously now trying to say that Ditko's Gwen was the shy and sensitive character that you were talking about before. If anything I could see you saying that about Romita's Gwen, but Ditko's Gwen??? Have you read the comics with Ditko's and Romita's Gwens?

Yes Webb's Gwen was completely different from Ditko's Gwen, but so was Romita's (which eventually became the version that most associate with the character), and not for the reasons that you mentioned.

And...I'm not even going to address the fact that you think that (because of Romita's influence) all of the characters became bland and indistinguishable from one another in terms of characterization and personality. You are entitled to your own opinion about the Spider-Man comics.

My argument was, and remains that the Gwen in TASM acts a lot more like Emma Stone than the Gwen Stacy from the 1960's comic books. This is taking not only her sassy teasing of Peter in their first encounter into account, but her overall boldness and assertiveness that 616 Gwen never displayed. Obviously, there were aspects of the comic book character that they translated to screen, but it was by no means a "direct", "faithful" adaptation of the character. They pulled from different sources- this is exactly the point DigificWriter is getting at.

What sources? Emma Stone's other movies?

They pulled from Ultimate MJ and the TSSM cartoon without a doubt, but I think that it is difficult to argue that this character was not predominantly inspired by the 616 version of the character with some liberties taken. I'm not trying to say that she was a 'direct' adaptation of the comics.

Shall I begin posting pictures? I just find it funny that such a big deal is made of the actress and direction being taken for a supporting actress and her fidelity to the comics while a supporting actor like Harry (who is also kind of a big deal) bears zero visual resemblance to Harry from the comics and whose character is now a "womanizer" type. Yeah, exactly like 616 Harry from the comics who was more of an oblivious sidekick than anything. The original comics didn't really do Harry Osborn too many favours and he didn't particularly have any real depth (which can be argued of 1960's Gwen and MJ as well). For a feature film in 2013, where we are meant to relate to these characters as real people, they need to be treated as real people, not vaguely defined, sitcom archetypes (hot popular girl, rich roommate, brainy/pretty girl).

Right, and this argument has nothing to do with whether or not Shailene Woodley bears a physical resemblance to the character. It really has nothing to do with Shailene at all.

Oblivious sidekick??? Really? I'm not even gonna argue about Harry Osborn's character. I just think that saying that Harry Osborn has been given a "complete makeover" is a bit premature when we haven't even seen the film yet. I feel the same way about what people have said about Webb's interpretation of MJ.

And aren't you trying to argue against these so-called 'sitcom archetypes', so how is making Harry Osborn the "womanizer" type any different/ more relevant to 2013? Doesn't that contradict the whole argument you've been making about Webb ridding these characters of 'lazy' 'catch-all' archetypes and descriptors?

Does it? Has it? I'd love to hear about it beyond the "pretty girl hides behind popular girl facade", which we already saw done very effectively in SM1.

MJ from the Raimi movies was a far cry from 616 MJ, and imo a very sloppily handled character overall who was just the constant damsel in distress in SM1 as opposed to the seemingly confident, vivacious, and feisty character that 616 MJ was.

Do you seriously not see how these things work against each other?

No, I'm afraid I don't. Saying that a woman (or a female character) being 'sexy', 'flirtatious' or overtly sexual somehow prevents her from having substance and/or being multivalent imo is a very 'dated' thought process that's practically right out of Victorian England or 1950's America.

I understand that women are held up to unrealistic standards of beauty in our society ( most notably the photoshopped and airbrushed magazine covers of rail thin plastic surgery supermodels). But, there's a big difference between unrealistic standards of beauty, and 'real women' being sexy and just as flirtatious (or even as promiscuous) as their male counterparts . I don't think that some people can delineate between the two. If Webb's Harry can be a 'womanizer' (which you clearly have no problem with), what's wrong with MJ being a maneater.

The problem is, that to a majority of fanboys, it may as well be her only characteristic. Everything about the character that's bandied about around here is secondary to how HOT and SEXY she should be.

I understand that 616 MJ is often simplified to big boobs and red hair. It's a shame (and a sad fact of life) because she is a really complex troubled character, but that doesn't negate the significance of the characters "sex appeal" (among many other things) in terms of her personality, characterization, relationship to other characters, and development. And this argument is purely based on MJ's portrayal within the 616 universe over the past 4 decades- not necessarily that Webb HAS to do this version of the character, nor that Shailene is not a mach for this version of the character and therefore needs to be recast. So please, do not tie this back to those arguments because I am not addressing that now.

And again, pray tell, what is the significance of the character's "seductiveness" and "flirtatiousness"? *shudder*Let's ask this question instead: What does MJ being portrayed as having "sex appeal" really bring to the character/story?

I’ve always gotten the impression that the sexiness has a lot to do with 616 Mary Jane’s own insecurities in a fashion similar to Norma Jeane Mortenson. In a very Freudian way, Mary Jane’s need to attract and be attractive is her way of compensating for all that she lacked as the child of an abusive alcoholic father and a severely ill mother. Her childhood affected the way that she behaved in her late teens/early adulthood. She wanted people to love her because her father didn’t and her mother couldn’t. It’s a shallow world that we live in and sexiness/sexual attraction plays into that. She was the life of the party, guys wanted to date her and girls wanted to be her, but she prevented people from getting too close. She's an actress and that sexiness along with the carefree attitude was all part of her main act. She didn't want them to see all of the pain that she’d been through –hence her inability to commit to serious relationships. She couldn’t allow herself to become vulnerable out of fear of being hurt again. The emotional barriers the she put up began to break down after Gwen died.

Beyond that, in both universes Mary Jane and Gwen Stacy’s characters have been portrayed as foils of each other. They are complete opposites: the party girl and the book worm, the seductress and the ingénue; when one’s wholesome, the other is more promiscuous or flirtatious (and dare I say: sexy), etc. Taken side by side, they emphasize each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Webb has already pushed Gwen Stacy towards the more youthful, wholesome, and studious 616 girl next door version of the character. I would prefer that his Mary Jane be much more ‘woman’ than ‘girl’ and carry herself with that classic 616 womanly confidence and flirtatiousness (even if it is just a façade) to be the complete antithesis of his Gwen, while still being just as (if not more) likable.

There's also some great symbolism in that.

Gwen is a girl. She's representative of Peter's innocence, youthfulness, and naivete. She and Peter are almost like Romeo and Juliet. They are star-crossed lovers whose immature teenage love affair is tragically cut short before it can blossom into a mature adult relationship. Webb perfectly captured that naivete in Peter and Gwen breaking the promise that Peter made Captain Stacy.

But Mary Jane is a WOMAN. Regardless of her age, there's a sexiness, a maturity, a confidence, and a worldliness in the way that she carries herself. She's gone through a lot of crap in her life (had to grow up quickly) and it's affected who she's become, whereas Gwen was sheltered and protected by loving parents. Gwen's death and Peter's transition to MJ is representative of his loss of innocence, and their mature adult relationship is one that can handle the weight and responsibility that comes with being Spider-Man. (If we forget about the complete mistake that was OMD)

Again, I'd like to note that Webb COULD manage to preserve contrast while completely changing the character. I understand that, and (although I clearly stated a preference) I'm not demanding anything of him. This is mainly an argument meant to illustrate why being sexy is integral to this particular version of the character. Why it plays a role in the character's personality and development and the grand scheme of things without diminishing or simplifying the character.

Yes, I really have. Over and over and over again, it seems.

No you haven't. Again you just ignored the question and tried to flip it around on me. Ive answered your question several times. Now answer mine: How does 616 MJ's (or any female character for that matter) being sexy ultimately diminish her character or prevent her from being multivalent character and having goals, ambitions, wants, likes, dislikes, a fully developed personality etc? That's basically what you were trying to suggest. And I'm not talking about the drawings themselves, this is purely a discussion based on 616 MJ's characterization.

That's all folks

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Right, but that's what I said. Amazing's Gwen definitely has the look of 616 Gwen. I don't think anyone is arguing that. Yes there are some slight tweaks here and there, like I mentioned how they have Peter and she meeting in high school and she knows his secret, but like I said before... big deal. But Gwen is the blond, hair band wearing, studious, science student; just like in the comic. That's Emma's Gwen and that Gwen is amazing and as close as we're going to get to 616 (very different than what Raimi gave us).

I repeat what I said earlier: TASM Gwen is INSPIRED by 616 Gwen; that doesn't mean she IS 616 Gwen.

as far as the looks go, in order to contrast with Gwen, they need to use a 616 inspired MJ.

No, they don't.

 

[Jekecy]

Is it necessary to the character? Absolutely not. Does MJ being a "bombshell" really enhance or bring anything interesting to the character aside from a bit of petty objectification for the wee fanboys in the audience? Nope.

Is this not up to how the character is written? Sure, the physical exterior could very well just serve as some shallow window dressing. But certainly there is opportunity there to delve into a fully-formed individual, utilizing all the classic elements prevalent in the books (and perhaps twisting them on their heads).

I can't agree with the position her stunning looks serve absolutely zero input into her character. I've always regarded it as directly playing into the group dynamic between Peter, Harry, Flash, and Gwen. She was the one who had everything going for her. She was admired at first glance, adored because of her personality. But she arguably had the most messed up background and out of that came about the MJ we thought we knew. There's plenty of great character stuff you can create off of that. But that's purely up the director, screenwriter, and actress to pursue.

On the contrary, you've not been able to provide any salient, reasonable, points as to why MJ being "sexy" is a necessary trait that brings anything to the character/story that wasn't already done effectively in SM1.

Personally I never felt Kirsten's MJ was fully developed in spite of covering a broad checklist of her 616 characteristics. A scene or two doesn't account for an all-around arc being crafted over a series of films.

I think like with Peter, it would be great for us to experience MJ first as this absolute knockout fantasy, who isn't likely to be the girl you bring home to Aunt May. But as we get to know her, behind the supermodel facade, we genuinely do fell head over heels for her.

Per chance, are you familiar with Marilyn Monroe's personal history past the Hollywood glamour? That's probably the most prevalent parallel I can draw from a real life figure. There's a reason she's still an icon today, and I think her looks combined with her tragic past make for a powerful figure who is as piteous as she is alluring.

 

[sl500jazz]

^Great post! I too have compared 616 MJ to Marilyn Monroe. If anyone is unfamiliar with her personal life, I suggest watching the hbo documentary "Love, Marilyn" or the movie "My week with Marilyn". what an incredibly heartwarming, fascinating, complex, and misunderstood person she was.

 

[WarriorDreamer]

I might be a bit of an oddball here but I'm one of those people who would pay a heck of a lot of money just to see an adaptation of the comics books, not 'vaguely inspired' by the comic books.

In doing that it may as well be an original story with characters who just happen to have the same name as Spider-Man characters and who have a slight resemblance to them as well.

I totally understand that in order to do a film adaptation it is going to have to be different, otherwise someone may as well read the comics, but to adapt a story, in a 2 hour live action film is changing the story. It is compressing a dynamic, an particular element or storyline which stuck out in SM comic books and translating it to screen.

I'm one of the people who think people should go back to the books, such as kids who are just discovering the story. But when a film is just plain unfaithful, incorrect or even disrespectful to a character I have to question the people behind those choices being made. As a writer myself, I would sorta hate if someone else took on my material and just took hacks to it however they pleased without trying to adapt it in the appropriate way.

I'm like sl500jazz, I'm sort of done with people who come on here for the sole reason of haughtily looking down their noses at other people's opinions and dismissing them entirely, even insulting them just because they slightly contradict their own. That is sheer ignorance and arrogance in my opinion. I wish this entire website could be renamed SuperheroOpinionHype or something, because the main wars are because people are mind blown that someone else has different thoughts to their own. *Gasp.*

Regarding Mary Jane, my only thoughts left are that she should not seem 'right' for Peter at first, the kind of girl he would turn away. Not because she's unattractive, but because she isn't his 'type.' Gwen is all Peter could want in a girlfriend, until she dies of course. Then, after a while he sees http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HiddenDepths in MJ.

If he already has the perfect girl in Gwen, introducing Mary Jane as another perfect girl, 'outcast, loner, smart, academic' basically everything Peter could relate to, makes us as an audience, feel he should be with her instantly, when actually we're supposed to feel he shouldn't be. (Assuming he is Spider-Man full time.) Because she doesn't have enough depth. This gives the writers/ producers a chance to allow her to grow as a character into something he CAN relate to, alongside the SM action in the space of two movies.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

The more I know about Gwen from the comics, the less it seems that she ever was a good three dimensional character. The event that was her death was so big that it seems to make it less important what she was like as a character before, but rather how it affected the other characters after

Outside of the appearance, Emma Stone's Gwen doesn't strike me as the "classic Gwen Stacy from the comics", but because of what I said above, I don't really care. She did a great job and I can't wait to see what she will bring to the character in TASM2

 

[Vid Electricz]

Lol might as well just repost everything that I originally said in response to Vid's argument.

Here I go again... I knew that it wouldn't last long.



I don't even know where to begin. Are you seriously now trying to say that Ditko's Gwen was the shy and sensitive character that you were talking about before. If anything I could see you saying that about Romita's Gwen, but Ditko's Gwen??? Have you read the comics with Ditko's and Romita's Gwens?

Yes Webb's Gwen was completely different from Ditko's Gwen, but so was Romita's (which eventually became the version that most associate with the character), and not for the reasons that you mentioned.

And...I'm not even going to address the fact that you think that (because of Romita's influence) all of the characters became bland and indistinguishable from one another in terms of characterization and personality. You are entitled to your own opinion about the Spider-Man comics.


What sources? Emma Stone's other movies?

They pulled from Ultimate MJ and the TSSM cartoon without a doubt, but I think that it is difficult to argue that this character was not predominantly inspired by the 616 version of the character with some liberties taken. I'm not trying to say that she was a 'direct' adaptation of the comics.


Right, and this argument has nothing to do with whether or not Shailene Woodley bears a physical resemblance to the character. It really has nothing to do with Shailene at all.

Oblivious sidekick??? Really? I'm not even gonna argue about Harry Osborn's character. I just think that saying that Harry Osborn has been given a "complete makeover" is a bit premature when we haven't even seen the film yet. I feel the same way about what people have said about Webb's interpretation of MJ.

And aren't you trying to argue against these so-called 'sitcom archetypes', so how is making Harry Osborn the "womanizer" type any different/ more relevant to 2013? Doesn't that contradict the whole argument you've been making about Webb ridding these characters of 'lazy' 'catch-all' archetypes and descriptors?


MJ from the Raimi movies was a far cry from 616 MJ, and imo a very sloppily handled character overall who was just the constant damsel in distress in SM1 as opposed to the seemingly confident, vivacious, and feisty character that 616 MJ was.


No, I'm afraid I don't. Saying that a woman (or a female character) being 'sexy', 'flirtatious' or overtly sexual somehow prevents her from having substance and/or being multivalent imo is a very 'dated' thought process that's practically right out of Victorian England or 1950's America.

I understand that women are held up to unrealistic standards of beauty in our society ( most notably the photoshopped and airbrushed magazine covers of rail thin plastic surgery supermodels). But, there's a big difference between unrealistic standards of beauty, and 'real women' being sexy and just as flirtatious (or even as promiscuous) as their male counterparts . I don't think that some people can delineate between the two. If Webb's Harry can be a 'womanizer' (which you clearly have no problem with), what's wrong with MJ being a maneater.


I understand that 616 MJ is often simplified to big boobs and red hair. It's a shame (and a sad fact of life) because she is a really complex troubled character, but that doesn't negate the significance of the characters "sex appeal" (among many other things) in terms of her personality, characterization, relationship to other characters, and development. And this argument is purely based on MJ's portrayal within the 616 universe over the past 4 decades- not necessarily that Webb HAS to do this version of the character, nor that Shailene is not a mach for this version of the character and therefore needs to be recast. So please, do not tie this back to those arguments because I am not addressing that now.


Again, I'd like to note that Webb COULD manage to preserve contrast while completely changing the character. I understand that, and (although I clearly stated a preference) I'm not demanding anything of him. This is mainly an argument meant to illustrate why being sexy is integral to this particular version of the character. Why it plays a role in the character's personality and development and the grand scheme of things without diminishing or simplifying the character.



No you haven't. Again you just ignored the question and tried to flip it around on me. Ive answered your question several times. Now answer mine: How does 616 MJ's (or any female character for that matter) being sexy ultimately diminish her character or prevent her from being multivalent character and having goals, ambitions, wants, likes, dislikes, a fully developed personality etc? That's basically what you were trying to suggest. And I'm not talking about the drawings themselves, this is purely a discussion based on 616 MJ's characterization.

That's all folks

Did you seriously just repost your previous post in its entirety as though it's actually meant to be some catch-all response to my most recent post? lol. Serious?

 

[Super Jim]

I might be a bit of an oddball here but I'm one of those people who would pay a heck of a lot of money just to see an adaptation of the comics books, not 'vaguely inspired' by the comic books.

In doing that it may as well be an original story with characters who just happen to have the same name as Spider-Man characters and who have a slight resemblance to them as well.

I totally understand that in order to do a film adaptation it is going to have to be different, otherwise someone may as well read the comics, but to adapt a story, in a 2 hour live action film is changing the story. It is compressing a dynamic, an particular element or storyline which stuck out in SM comic books and translating it to screen.

I'm one of the people who think people should go back to the books, such as kids who are just discovering the story. But when a film is just plain unfaithful, incorrect or even disrespectful to a character I have to question the people behind those choices being made. As a writer myself, I would sorta hate if someone else took on my material and just took hacks to it however they pleased without trying to adapt it in the appropriate way.

I'm like sl500jazz, I'm sort of done with people who come on here for the sole reason of haughtily looking down their noses at other people's opinions and dismissing them entirely, even insulting them just because they slightly contradict their own. That is sheer ignorance and arrogance in my opinion. I wish this entire website could be renamed SuperheroOpinionHype or something, because the main wars are because people are mind blown that someone else has different thoughts to their own. *Gasp.*

Regarding Mary Jane, my only thoughts left are that she should not seem 'right' for Peter at first, the kind of girl he would turn away. Not because she's unattractive, but because she isn't his 'type.' Gwen is all Peter could want in a girlfriend, until she dies of course. Then, after a while he sees http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HiddenDepths in MJ.

If he already has the perfect girl in Gwen, introducing Mary Jane as another perfect girl, 'outcast, loner, smart, academic' basically everything Peter could relate to, makes us as an audience, feel he should be with her instantly, when actually we're supposed to feel he shouldn't be. (Assuming he is Spider-Man full time.) Because she doesn't have enough depth. This gives the writers/ producers a chance to allow her to grow as a character into something he CAN relate to, alongside the SM action in the space of two movies.

I'm with you. I would much rather see, for the most past (not necessarily 100%), the comic book material adapted into a movie than some guy putting his own twisted twist on the canon gold.

Look what that has done to the x-Men franchise! They now have a complilation of things that make no sense and timeline issues that they can only fix with a reboot or someone going back into the past in order to change the future.

Right now the Amazing Spider-Man franchise is clean. We have an established Peter that has depth. We have an established Gwen that we all love. We had a decent origin villain in the Lizard that they wrote a story around that makes him part of the Richard/Mary Parker/Osborn story. Overall I'm good with that because it gave Peter a villain that was not the Goblin, which saves the Goblin for a build up over 2-3 movies, and as long as Harry is not the Green Goblin we're good. The moment they show Harry as the Goblin (and I'm very worried they will) they will have lost me.

Looking forward to the crying faces in the theatre at the end of TASM2 when Gwen dies!

Looking forward to the Goblin being on screen in TASM2!

And I'm looking forward to a new actress as a 616 inspired MJ in TASM3!

 

[Oscorp]

I'm like sl500jazz, I'm sort of done with people who come on here for the sole reason of haughtily looking down their noses at other people's opinions and dismissing them entirely, even insulting them just because they slightly contradict their own. That is sheer ignorance and arrogance in my opinion. I wish this entire website could be renamed SuperheroOpinionHype or something, because the main wars are because people are mind blown that someone else has different thoughts to their own. *Gasp.*

Regarding Mary Jane, my only thoughts left are that she should not seem 'right' for Peter at first, the kind of girl he would turn away. Not because she's unattractive, but because she isn't his 'type.' Gwen is all Peter could want in a girlfriend, until she dies of course. Then, after a while he sees http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HiddenDepths in MJ.

If he already has the perfect girl in Gwen, introducing Mary Jane as another perfect girl, 'outcast, loner, smart, academic' basically everything Peter could relate to, makes us as an audience, feel he should be with her instantly, when actually we're supposed to feel he shouldn't be. (Assuming he is Spider-Man full time.) Because she doesn't have enough depth. This gives the writers/ producers a chance to allow her to grow as a character into something he CAN relate to, alongside the SM action in the space of two movies.

Very well said! All of it. 100% true

 

[sl500jazz]

Did you seriously just repost your previous post in its entirety as though it's actually meant to be some catch-all response to my most recent post? lol. Serious?

Lol. No that wasn't a response to your recent post. It's just the response to one of your older posts. If you look back, you'll see that I deleted/edited the post a couple minutes before your response to it. So I figured since you responded to a post that was deleted, I might as well just repost everything that was initially said (including the part that quotes some of my older posts describing 616 MJ's character development) so people reading these forums could see what it is that I was trying to argue and what I was responding to in your argument.

I'm sort of drained and tired of this whole debate. For the most part, our opinions are completely different. I've been trying to find a common ground, and (for the most part) it has been to no avail. What you've said really has had no effect on my stance, and I'm sure the same applies with what I've said and your stance on the issue(s) in question- so why keep going in circles?

Jekecy is correct in saying that the most prevalent example of 616 MJ in our society is Marilyn Monroe- who's (despite her death in 1962) iconic yet tragic image is undying and has captured the hearts and minds of millions (movie goers, critics, artists, writers, musicians, aspiring actors/actresses, social activists, etc.). Just out of curiosity, (as Jekecy had asked) are you familiar with the actress and her personal history- the woman behind the comedy classics, hollywood glamour,and playboy pictures?

 

[DigificWriter]

I'm with you. I would much rather see, for the most past (not necessarily 100%), the comic book material adapted into a movie than some guy putting his own twisted twist on the canon gold.

That's not adapting; it's translating.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Lol. No that wasn't a response to your recent post. It's just the response to one of your older posts. If you look back, you'll see that I deleted/edited the post a couple minutes before your response to it. So I figured since you responded to a post that was deleted, I might as well just repost everything that was initially said (including the part that quotes some of my older posts describing 616 MJ's character development) so people reading these forums could see what it is that I was trying to argue and what I was responding to in your argument.

I am sorry you are unable to respond to my arguments.

I'm sort of drained and tired of this whole debate. For the most part, our opinions are completely different. I've been trying to find a common ground, and (for the most part) it has been to no avail. What you've said really has had no effect on my stance, and I'm sure the same applies with what I've said and your stance on the issue(s) in question- so why keep going in circles?

The thing is, I know exactly where you're coming from- but as your posts continuously demonstrate, you really have no understanding of where Fuflipflops, DigificWriter or myself are coming from or what we're trying to communicate (very saliently, might I add).

Jekecy is correct in saying that the most prevalent example of 616 MJ in our society is Marilyn Monroe- who's (despite her death in 1962) iconic yet tragic image is undying and has captured the hearts and minds of millions (movie goers, critics, artists, writers, musicians, aspiring actors/actresses, social activists, etc.). Just out of curiosity, (as Jekecy had asked) are you familiar with the actress and her personal history- the woman behind the comedy classics, hollywood glamour,and playboy pictures?

lol.

 

[sl500jazz]

^ Fuflipflops is just clearly very frustrated with all of the people who have made nasty and disparaging remarks about Shailene Woodley's physical appearance, and with those people who have simplified MJ to nothing more than a pretty face and a slim waist. That I completely understand and I even feel the same way.

DigificWriter feels the same about the Woodley controversy, is open to anything with regards to MJ's portrayal in the Webb franchise (which I fully understand), and although we have a difference of opinion with regards to the impression that MJ's. initial portrayal/introduction in the 616 universe will give mainstream audiences today (Digific has expressed the belief that it makes her look condescending which I disagree with), I'd like to think that we have both agreed that we've already made our points and that it's time we move past it.

You've clearly demonstrated that trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to have a discussion with a brick wall. It's a discussion that goes nowhere (just in circles) and you even contradict yourself. It seems that you try to argue almost anything to try to prove me (and others) wrong instead of having an open dialogue, you offer nothing to back up the assertions that you make, and you look down upon anyone who even slightly disagrees with something that you have to say (what makes you such an authority over everyone else on these forums- I have no clue). I could continue to respond to your "arguments", but at this point, I feel that it's pointless to even do so. I've already stated my beliefs several times and how/why i have come to those conclusions (very saliently might I add). The Monroe thing was genuinely out of curiosity, but thanks for the lol. Your reaction to me trying to move on from this discussion (as opposed to DigificWriter's) speaks for itself.

 

[Vid Electricz]

^ Fuflipflops is just clearly very frustrated with all of the people who have made nasty and disparaging remarks about Shailene Woodley's physical appearance, and with those people who have simplified MJ to nothing more than a pretty face and a slim waist. That I completely understand and I even feel the same way.

I'm right there as well. So you agree that her "beauty" ("sexiness", "bombshell look" , etc...) is unecessary to the character and need not be her primary trait. Excellent.

DigificWriter feels the same about the Woodley controversy, is open to anything with regards to MJ's portrayal in the Webb franchise (which I fully understand), and although we have a difference of opinion with regards to the impression that MJ's. initial portrayal/introduction in the 616 universe will give mainstream audiences today (Digific has expressed the belief that it makes her look condescending which I disagree with), I'd like to think that we have both agreed that we've already made our points and that it's time we move past it.

You've clearly demonstrated that trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to have a discussion with a brick wall. It's a discussion that goes nowhere (just in circles) and you even contradict yourself.

Please provide an example.

It seems that you try to argue almost anything to try to prove me (and others) wrong instead of having an open dialogue, you offer nothing to back up the assertions that you make,

If I'm guilty of this, then you most certainly are! But again, you couldn't be bothered to even respond to my previous argument, so of course you're making these baseless and patently false claims. Just because you choose to ignore my points, doesn't mean I haven't made, and subsequently "backed them up".

and you look down upon anyone who even slightly disagrees with something that you have to say (what makes you such an authority over everyone else on these forums- I have no clue). I could continue to respond to your "arguments", but at this point, I feel that it's pointless to even do so. I've already stated my beliefs several times and how/why i have come to those conclusions (very saliently might I add). The Monroe thing was genuinely out of curiosity, but thanks for the lol. Your reaction to me trying to move on from this discussion (as opposed to DigificWriter's) speaks for itself.

Sorry you feel that way!

 

[sl500jazz]

Looked at the Dane Dehaan thread. You really know how to get under people's skin, don't cha Vid? This tit for tat is really never-ending and exhausting,so I'm gonna try to end it again. Too much negativity, and I've allowed myself to get sucked into it. Please let's just agree to disagree and move on. People have different opinions- it's a fact of life- and I think that we've picked on this one to the bone. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty happy with what I've posted about this character. I've said what I needed to say and posted tons of panels and pages from the actual comics to help illustrate those arguments. All of the posts(along with your rebuttals) are still here for people to look at, read, and draw their own conclusions- as it should be. I just want to thank you. Out of everyone on these threads you've really kept me on my toes, and (although we may disagree and my opinions reinforced more than ever) you've challenged me and allowed me to reexamine the comics and the characters that I love so much, and I'm sure deep down that you care for them as well. That, my friend, is the common ground.

Peace in the Middle East!

PS. If you haven't seen "My week with Marilyn" you should really think about watching it. Michelle Williams gave a fantastic performance as Monroe. Williams (who isnt exactly a dead ringer for Monroe) perfectly nailed the fire, the wit, and the sexiness, while still retaining the fragility, vulnerability, and longing that often went unnoticed during her lifetime