"Amazing Spider-man 2" discussion

[davejames]

Christopher wrote:

---

So I have no trouble believing that Peter fell for MJ for her personality rather than her looks. Especially since we literally saw that on the page. At first, Peter was attracted to MJ but only loved Gwen, and found MJ too flighty and shallow to be really worth his while. But after Gwen died, MJ revealed unexpected depth and kindness when she stayed to comfort him, and it was that emotional connection that was the real beginning of their relationship.

I might be able to buy that if the character in the comics didn't seem to spend most of her time lounging around in Peter's apartment, in nothing but her underwear.

She's certainly never been portrayed as a ditz, but I don't see her being all that deep or complex either.

[Kestrel]

Garak wrote:

---

Why is Ginny Weasley in Amazing Spiderman?

The whole Harry thing wasn't working out.

She does bear a strong resemblance to Bonnie Wright though, doesn't she? Let's hope they give her better writing and direction than the Queen of Meh we got stuck with in Potter.

[Christopher]

Chris Cooper has signed on to play Noman Osborn in Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 for Columbia Pictures.

Interesting choice.

davejames wrote:

---

I might be able to buy that if the character in the comics didn't seem to spend most of her time lounging around in Peter's apartment, in nothing but her underwear.

She's certainly never been portrayed as a ditz, but I don't see her being all that deep or complex either.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that we can see right there in the actual comics that Peter Parker fell in love with her because of her kindness, her willingness to stick with him through hardship, and the like. It's not about rating her looks or her IQ on a numerical scale, it's about the bonds that form between two people through their shared experience and emotional ties. Of course she looked hot and sexy; most characters in visually oriented fiction do, so it doesn't really mean that much in context, especially when the writers surround Peter with lots of other gorgeous love interests like Gwen and the Black Cat and Glory Grant, not to mention all the gorgeous, scantily clad superheroines he works alongside. What matters is the stories, the interaction between the characters. The stories clearly show that Peter and MJ's relationship is about shared experience and commitment and trust, about their mutual support for one another. Which is not to say it hasn't been a turbulent relationship; there were a couple of times when she left him. And the fact that they were able to work through that and reunite (up until the idiocy of "One More Day") shows how much substance their was to their relationship, beyond the superficial factor of how she looked.

I've actually gotten to write the Peter-MJ relationship, in my novel Spider-Man: Drowned in Thunder. I read the entire run of The Amazing Spider-Man and as many other Spidey comics as I could get my hands on as research for that book, and I got into the heads of the characters in order to write about their relationship. And I felt it was a very rich and substantive relationship between two mature, mutually supportive people. Heck, even in the post-OMD comics where they're not married anymore, they still have a really nice, if platonic, relationship based on mutual trust, respect, understanding, and empathy, and we get to see what a really decent, worthwhile human being MJ is. Anyone who sees only the surface is just not paying attention.

[Nick Ryder]

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. BUT I totally agree with you about MJ - they're soul mates even if they aren't romantically involved - MJ really is Peter's best friend, although so is Betty Brant, but I see Betty as more like his surrogate sister - sure they dated way back, but I like the way they've been writing the two of them. Where Peter's pretty much her best friend and in one case, her only real friend.

I mean I don't know if I can see this new girl portraying a grown up MJ who runs around in skimpy attire as a model or soap opera actress or even a frequent club goer. Maybe she glams up more in make up and such, but she seems more cute than hot. Personally she's MY kind of girl and I would thank my lucky stars if she was my girlfriend I like the cute girls like that. But it's not MJ, although at least she has the right 'look' for a redhead vs blondie Kirsten Dunst.

If they ARE going for the more "Ultimate Spider-Man" MJ where she's more focused on being either a science major or journalist - then I've got no real problem with it then. Ultimate MJ is pretty but she's not the party girl the mainstream Marvel MJ is.

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.

But we'll see where this goes - the fact that they've got Spider-Man in a suit that's more like the classic costume is a good start. It's nice to see that they've evolved the suit and his gear. I wonder if they'll work in the utility belt with the Spider-signal belt buckle and web shooter cartridges and camera/cellphone compartment.

Be funny if they were able to rig up a Sony Cybershot slim camera into the belt - after all ASM was like a big Sony/Erricsson ad

[JD]

Some new pics and a set video of Woodley's MJ and Andrew Garfield's Peter. The article also theorizes that they appear to be going for something closer to the Ultimate version of Mary Jane. I definitely seem to be getting a more down to Earth vibe from the things we've seen so far.
Either way I think Woodley is more than attractive enough to play Mary Jane based on what I know of the character. Sure she might not be a super-model type, but I don't see where the character has to be.

[Captaindemotion]

I've long thought that they'll have a hard, hard job replacing Willem Dafoe as Norman/GG ... but this is an inspired choice and one which could well match him.

Remember when Norman killed Lex Luthor in American Beauty? (And when Norman's onscreen son in that movie, Wes Bentley, was the runner-up to Tobey Maguire to play Peter for Sam Raimi?)

[Christopher]

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.

[davejames]

Christopher wrote:

---

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that we can see right there in the actual comics that Peter Parker fell in love with her because of her kindness, her willingness to stick with him through hardship, and the like. It's not about rating her looks or her IQ on a numerical scale, it's about the bonds that form between two people through their shared experience and emotional ties. Of course she looked hot and sexy; most characters in visually oriented fiction do, so it doesn't really mean that much in context, especially when the writers surround Peter with lots of other gorgeous love interests like Gwen and the Black Cat and Glory Grant, not to mention all the gorgeous, scantily clad superheroines he works alongside. What matters is the stories, the interaction between the characters. The stories clearly show that Peter and MJ's relationship is about shared experience and commitment and trust, about their mutual support for one another. Which is not to say it hasn't been a turbulent relationship; there were a couple of times when she left him. And the fact that they were able to work through that and reunite (up until the idiocy of "One More Day") shows how much substance their was to their relationship, beyond the superficial factor of how she looked.

I agree. What matters is the stories and the characters and the relationship-- not the fact she has to look like a gorgeous supermodel just because the comics happen to draw her that way.

You can't say "it doesn't matter" on one hand, and then insist that she has to look a certain way on the other.

[DigificWriter]

I said this elsewhere, but there have actually been very few instances in adapted, non-literature media where MJ has been portrayed as the 'hot model chick'.

In fact, the only instance I can think of off the top of my head is the 1994 FOX cartoon.

[Christopher]

DigificWriter wrote:

---

I said this elsewhere, but there have actually been very few instances in adapted, non-literature media where MJ has been portrayed as the 'hot model chick'.

In fact, the only instance I can think of off the top of my head is the 1994 FOX cartoon.

The version of MJ in the Spectacular Spider-Man animated series fit the comics' template pretty well -- stunning, gregarious, glamorous, flirtatious, but kind and supportive. (On that show, Gwen was the bookish, nerdy one.) Like the '94 series, SSM introduced her the same way the comics did -- having Aunt May mention her for weeks and Peter being convinced she'll be unattractive, then having the big "Face it, Tiger, you just hit the jackpot" reveal.

I'd say the version in the 2003 CGI series was sort of a cross between the movie and comics versions of MJ; the show was nominally a continuation of the first Raimi movie (though the second and third movies contradicted it), but its MJ was a model as well as an actress, and her character design was rather more, err, front-heavy than Kirsten Dunst.

There's also MJ's first appearance in an episode of the '60s cartoon, where she's portrayed as a ditzy, leggy go-go dancer (and Captain Stacy's niece!).

[Hartzilla2007]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

And we have a new Norman Osborn

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...-cooper-424874

Wow. Norman's still going to be alive in this thing!?

I mean Amazing Spider-Man made it sound like he was at death's door.

So if Norman is the Green Goblin in one of these films are they going to go with the Ultimate version of Green Goblin or is he going to be throwing a bed pan at Spider-Man.

[DigificWriter]

@Christopher: Speaking of that line, it's one I've never particularly cared for, although the '94 series made it work by getting rid of its inherently stuck- up connotations.

[Nick Ryder]

Well the "Face it Tiger, you hit the jackpot" line is iconic and her first line we really see out of her mouth in the comics when she's finally revealed.

I know there's nothing wrong with a non-supermodel MJ but why are so many other elements of Spider-Man slavishly adhered to and not that? I mean people moan and groan when the costume doesn't look like the classic (and now complain that it looks to close to the Raimi version). Gwen looks like she stepped out of a Romita comic. Even when you think of our only other comics red head - Black Widow - they did integrate her more glamourous side into the character we got in the movie.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a non super-model MJ it's just... hey she was a model and actress in the comics for almost 30-40 years - nearly as long as she's been around. The ore "brainy" MJ is still fairly 'new' - even if it's a concept that's almost 10-13 years old at this point.

I AM, however, a little concerned about how they're going to work in Osborn. since yes, ASM did sort of imply that he was not in good shape - so I was actually almost expecting an older actor - who may have 'regressed' into a younger one because of the Goblin serum. I DO hope they keep his personality aspect as a schemer, planner, and mad genius intact and not just a crazy businessman who got a whacked out form of the Super Soldier Serum and wore a Power Rangers costume because he got high on his own supply.

[DigificWriter]

^ Chris Cooper is far from young: he's 61.

[Kestrel]

Christopher wrote:

---

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.

QFT. One of the very best examples of this in animation is Young Justice, which is a seamless distillation of over 50 years of the DC universe plus a number of new spins that works as a cohesive and independent whole.