Nick Ryder wrote:
Well Chris - I think you kinda missed the point some of us were on - if they're going for a 616ish style MJ, they kinda dropped it - her whole thing is this vivacious "Face it Tiger, you hit the jackpot!" kind of girl.
And you're assuming this actress is incapable of that based on two photographs? What complete and utter nonsense. There's no reason a woman has to look a certain way in order to have a vibrant and compelling personality, or to be a lively party girl. That's a complete non sequitur. Those aren't qualities embodied in the face.
And there are more kinds of beauty than the kind immediately evident in a still photograph -- like the kind of beauty that's in how a woman moves and smiles, the animation behind her features. Or the kind of beauty that sneaks up on you, that you don't notice right away but see more and more every time you look. The most beautiful woman I've ever met didn't look half as lovely in photos as she did in person, because her beauty was such a dynamic, expressive thing.
Although if they were really going for an Ultimate Spider-Man inspired movie - then Gwen should have been far more "punk" than the classier Gwen we've got in Emma Stone.
Why would they draw everything from a single source? We've had decades' worth of comics adaptations on TV and film that have drawn from multiple sources. The previous Marvel movies have often drawn on a mix of 616 and Ultimate antecedents -- like the Raimi movies using a genetic-engineering origin for Spidey's powers but recreating Lee and Ditko's J. Jonah Jameson almost perfectly. Batman: The Animated Series
drew on both pre-Crisis and post-Crisis elements and storylines. And so on. By now it should be perfectly clear that adaptations can draw on anything
from the source material. It's not about copying any pre-existing continuity, it's about creating a new interpretation of the characters and their world. So anything that came before, regardless of what continuity it came from, is fair game.