Revisiting Mary Jane Watson: The Greatest Female in Comic Book Movies

Revisiting Mary Jane Watson: The Greatest Female in Comic Book Movies

Kirsten Dunst. Mary Jane Watson. Let's restore that reputation, what do you say?

I wrote the following editorial for another website a while ago, but it didn't start the kind of discussions I was looking for. I'm reposting it on this site to spark discussion. So, have at it!

In 2004, complaints about Kirsten Dunst’s portrayal of Mary Jane Watson were far apart from word of the newly released Spider-Man 2, which had seemed to claim the title of “Greatest Superhero Movie Ever Made.” The film was a smash hit, thanks to an endearing, powerful story, spectacular writing, fantastic action, and top-notch performances from all the actors.

Flash forward to 2012 and we find the Internet ripe with hate and disdain for Dunst as MJ, calling her character “whiny” and too much of a “damsel in distress.” Now, of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it seems that a general (and seemingly newly-found) dislike for the actress seems to have diminished the fantastic character of Mary Jane Watson in the original Spider-Man trilogy. So, I’d like to take this opportunity to break down MJ in Raimi’s set of films and possibly attempt to bring her back to her place as the strongest female character in comic book movies.

Women in comic book movies provide some fantastic performances. Recently, Anne Hathaway’s Selina Kyle was a showstopper, and one would be stoned if they don’t mention Natalie Portman’s turn as Evey in V for Vendetta. And of course there’s Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts in Iron Man to bring some wit and substance to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as well as Peggy Carter, played by Hayley Atwell, in Captain America: The First Avenger. But do any of these characters experience the real, genuine character arc achieved by Mary Jane in the Spider-Man films? Let’s look between the lines at the trilogy.

In Spider-Man, we’re introduced to Mary Jane, the girl next door, as the unachievable, outgoing, and beautiful person of interest to Peter Parker. As the film progresses, we find out that she comes from an emotionally abusive father and begins dating someone she’s not fully convinced she likes (Harry Osborn). After being victim to the first public attack by the Green Goblin, she (and tons of others) are subsequently saved by Spider-Man. Later in the film, she and Peter become closer. She’s then saved by Spider-Man from some muggers where she shares a now-iconic kiss in the rain. Later, she’s once again victim to Green Goblin, being thrown off the bridge (a homage to Gwen Stacy) but is saved by Spider-Man. At the end of the film, MJ has decided to abandon her relationship with Harry to be with Peter Parker, who she has discovered a new love for. Peter, not wishing to hurt her in his role as Spider-Man, rejects her affections. Roll credits.

So, in part one, we find that the popular girl who comes from an mentally abusive family ends up leaving a rich billionaire’s son and rejecting fantasies of following Spider-Man around to fall in love with childhood friend Peter Parker, who, for reasons not revealed to her, rejects her at the last possible moment. Right away, we’re given a look into a wholesome character with obvious dreams and passions, who takes control of her life and doesn’t live to serve the protagonist.

In Spider-Man 2, we find that MJ has since become a Broadway star. Wait a minute. She wasn’t a Broadway star when we last saw her, which means she must have, through her own hard work and determination followed her dreams from high school and made something of herself. It should be noted that the first thing we see in Spider-Man 2 is her face plastered on a billboard; she’s already made and cemented herself before we’re even given any exposition. Within the first few seconds of the movie, she’s already an independent character. As we come to find out through the film’s progression, she’s left the idea of being with Peter, choosing instead to date arguably one of the most famous men in New York City: the astronaut John Jameson. Skip ahead and we see her battling her inner desires for Peter as he suddenly becomes a staple in her life again. During the climax of the movie, she finally finds out that Peter is, in fact, Spider-Man. She then chooses to leave media icon Jameson for Peter, despite the fact that she knows he has a responsibility as Spider-Man. She promises to share Peter with his destiny, without compromising her own life as seen in Spider-Man 3.

With this further development, we have a woman who literally has the world and chooses love over convenience. This is a woman who is in complete control of her own life and answers to no one, despite the possible and probable media backlash that could come from her leaving John Jameson. She’s not so hopelessly in love that she abandons her reality to follow an unachievable dream; she’s already proven her complete independence despite her background being from a lower-middle class, single-parent family. Spider-Man has nothing to do with her success. Peter has nothing to do with her success. She does it all on her own.

Spider-Man 3 is a punching bag on all fronts. And it’s this film that begins to draw in the “whiny” complaints of Mary Jane. But I pose this question: is Mary Jane seriously out of line in her desires to be with Peter? She’s obviously very aware of the decision she made to be with him, but it’s completely realistic to regret that slightly once the relationship starts rolling. That, and witnessing your boyfriend reenacting your kiss with another girl for all the public to see may be a little less than appealing. And having him then show you up in your own establishment of work to rub your failures in your face probably won’t do too much for your ego either.

The point is this: does Mary Jane really get out of line, or is she acting realistically? Are we attacking the old trilogy to raise the newer Spider-Man film to new heights? Is that fair? I’m no fan of The Amazing Spider-Man, but I hold its failures and successes by its own merits and not because of a preference to Raimi’s trilogy. The Spider-Man trilogy is by no means perfect, but I do find it to lack more problems than the current installment in the Spidey mythos.

So, the next time we treat Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane as a lamb being led to slaughter, let’s step back and analyze her arc. It’s perfectly fine to prefer Emma Stone or Gwen Stacy or other comic book movie females; but to berate Mary Jane Watson from the Spider-Man trilogy just to jump on the current bandwagon is the definition of juvenile. Flat, boring, useless, underdeveloped and horribly-acted character? Try again.
Posted By:
Member Since 3/19/2012
Filed Under "Spider-Man" 11/11/2012
DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
Nighmarewalking117 - 11/11/2012, 8:32 PM
Nice. I never really understood the hate for her. She was just an actor giving a line and we shouldn't hold-that against them.
95 - 11/11/2012, 8:52 PM
Good point, and I agree. She's definitely a strong female character, with her own objectives, relatable objectives (showbiz), who goes to work and pays her dues, and doesn't speak of men or the exposition of the next action sequence in EVERY BIT OF DIALOGUE.

I never really thought about it that deeply, but I do have to agree that it's not out-of-line for her character to be a damsel-in-distress EVERY DARN TIME. But I guess audiences just got fed up with Parker's desire to be with her by that turning point in Spider-Man 3. I swear I heard guys in the front row of my theater shout: "GO WITH THE RUSSIAN LANDLORD'S DAUGHTER! SHE WANTS TO GET IT IN!" And I can't disagree, lol...

In the end, Maguire and Dunst had great chemistry together, strange enough. And another great article, thanks for that @BattlinMurdock! Man, do you explain yourself with extreme confidence.
FirstAvenger - 11/11/2012, 9:56 PM
Nice article, but I think Peter and MJ are whiny they just seem corny and cheesy, in '04 I was fine with it but now it just seems different. But that's just my opinion.
superotherside - 11/11/2012, 9:58 PM
While I've kept my opinion to myself for the most part, I thought Kristin played MJ excellent in the Spider-man movies. And she was extremely cute in each of them I might add for those who complain about her not being pretty enough. Not a perfect MJ, but she still did a good job. Actually I still like her story a bit more than most other love interests, but that's just me. The movies showed her side a bit more than other films have as well. Although, it was a little bit boring to have her be the damsel in distress EVERY movie. But oh well, it was a different time. Enjoy what you had yesterday, be glad for what you have today, and look forward to what you have in the future. :)

Great write up as always BattlinMurdock!
Preston - 11/11/2012, 10:08 PM
Well, Spider-man 2 is still the best Spider-man film ever made, and it's still one of the finest CBMs to date. The power-ranger goblin in the first one made sure of that. And, the third was, well, we all know how that went.

Here is a blast from the past, Vindicated by Dashboard Confessional:

I'll just make two points, in order to keep this post relevant:

First, I think having Peter cry over her all the time was annoying (it was done to over kill); I'm not big on the whole angsty love thing (to begin with). I think if it were balanced out by wise-cracking Spider-man (which we never got) it would have been fine, but at times Spider-man bordered on emo (and in the third one it just went there).

Secondly, Dunst has lovely legs, but she isn't model pretty. The fact that all these guys are fighting over her, it doesn't make sense. In fact, the same can be said about Maggie Gyllenhaal and Katie Holmes. If the girl is going to have every male fighting over her, she should be an alpha female, not some beta/omega. Her beauty should render the men in the audience stupefied.

So, yeah, Spider-man crying over dog-faced Dunst all the time was hard to swallow.

Don't cry Parker

EdgyOutsider - 11/11/2012, 10:23 PM
Great write up as always :) While I liked Kristen Dunst as M.J, especially in the first one more than the other two. I just don't feel she is as interesting of a character as Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy. For awhile, Spider-Man 2 was my favorite Spidey flick. The Amazing Spider-Man, in my respectful opinion, is stronger than the others on almost every level. While Peter's crying when uncle Ben died was a little weak and him catching the fly was utterly pointless. I feel it is a more emotional film, the chemistry between the actors is better (I still PRAISE J.K Simmons as Jameson) and the overall acting was better. The story and writing I also felt we're also better, well... Okay I take that first one back. I read in a comment you left or a article you made awhile back about how Peter didn't talk like a normal human being. I slightly take offense to that because the way he talks to characters in the movie, mostly Gwen I can relate to.

As a 16 year old, I can easily relate to that. I can never get my act straight with girls, even friends I have known forever cause for some reason, I always got/get tongue tied. The only true problems I can name for TASM is the plot pick up and quick drop off of the hyped "Untold Story" and the unknown fate of Dr.Ratha. These are the only two real problems I can find with the movie. I never got the sense of dejavu at all. As I stated before, I think this is the best Spider-Man film to date. Unfortunately, I dread the upcoming sequel due to them picking Electro. A completely uninteresting villain. I personally would rather see Lizard again and that would be a bad thing to do too. That's how much I hate Electro. I just hope that the third film which will undoubtfully be "The Night Gwen Stacy died" is the best Spidey film ever.
Kalel219 - 11/12/2012, 4:49 AM
"Gwen was the best female lead in comic book movie history"

It's shit like this that ruins this site.
Spideyguy94 - 11/12/2012, 4:51 AM
This is a fanstastically written article and I respect your opinion but I disagree with it. In the raimi movies Mary Jane is a vey selfish and shallow character who needs to get over herself, everytime i watch any of the raimi movies i think why are these two together and what does Peter see in her. One thing I loved in TASM was the fact that gwen wanted to be with Peter not go on to the next best thing unlike Mary Jane. One of the things that makes peter and mj's relationship in the comics work is the fact they have a lot of give and take and when they are having problems in there lives they sit down and talk it out, they have communication unlike the raimi films where she won't let Peter explain himself as to why he couldn't turn up for her. As everyone knows everything that was bad about there relationship in 1&2 got amped up to 12 in spider-man 3, Mary Jane gets booted off the play she was in and gets a job as a singer waitress but doesn't tell Peter but tells Harry Osborn, then gets all pissed off at Peter when he doesn't know despite the fact she hasn't told him, again lack of communication. I could go on forever but all in all Mary Jane in the movies was not a good representation of her comic book counterpart.
Spideyguy94 - 11/12/2012, 5:00 AM
@kalel219 no it's not, the dude can have an opinion. What ruins this site is the whole Marvel vs DC bullshit and people not letting other people have an opinion that isn't there's and attacking them for it.
Shadow101 - 11/12/2012, 6:42 AM
@lizard1 Dr.Ratha was eaten by The Lizard..... And he ( Ratha ) says

" do you have any idea what you're really are?"

Just like in the trailers
Preston - 11/12/2012, 9:44 AM
I still say that ,

“the primary problem isn't with the characterization of Mary Jane, but the casting of Dunst in the role.”

Mary Jane in the comics is WAY out of Peter Parker's League. It's like Michael Cera ending up with the likes of Alessandra Ambriosio or Adriana Lima. The union should seem laughable to the common spectator; it is in the comics.
^^^ If I looked like this guy...

^^^ I would cry over Alessandra, and my friends wouldn't judge me.

^^^ or Lima (for that matter).

Dunst has a girl next door look about her that lacks that blessed by Aphrodite look that is needed by that character. Dunst looks like a girl that a guy like Toby could actually get in real life (see: Jennifer Meyer), and the fact that he cries over her all the time is completely illogical since he can get another dunst looking girl without trying. Plus, guys fighting over some plain chick just pulls you out of the suspension of disbelief. Note: If she were depicted as the girl nextdoor/moral support, and not some drop dead beauty it would have been easier to stomach.
Toby's wife
^^^Toby can pull Jen Meyer (his wife) in real life; Dunst wouldn't be a stretch, but MJ should be a stretch.

The girl should be the type of gal that you tell your buddy, “girls like that only come around once in a lifetime.” If you had a friend like Toby crying over something that looked like Dunst, you would be inclined to invite him out for a drink, and say, “there are plenty of fish in the sea; in fact, that girl over there [points at random girl] is hotter than her.” Therefore, the biggest flaw is in the casting, not in the characterization. Peter is that guy that ends up with that girl that everybody knows is way too good looking for him; it's what makes MJ work. Dunst isn't close to adequate next to Toby.

^^^This over Dunst is laughable at best.
Spideyguy94 - 11/12/2012, 10:30 AM
@Battlinmurdock that is true with Mary Jane at the end of spider-man 2 but throughout the film there is a lack of communication but the end makes up for it all. This is all undone in 3 she gets jealous because Peter as spider-man is more famous and people are starting to like him as spider-man. I'm sorry but when your boyfriend is finally catching a break and people start liking him you should be happy for him not jealous. And when she gets fired from the play and doesn't tell him but expects to just magically know again lack of communication. What made her such a great character in the comics is the fact that at first she came off as a shallow party girl and as it went on you find out that she acts this way because she's very insecure about herself and she's got a lot of issues. When they get married in the comics early peter feels insecure because she earns a lot more money than him but she quickly assures him that she loves him for who he is and just because he's barely bringing any money in doesn't mean she views him any less than when she did when she married him, this is the perfect example of there give and take relationship in the comics which I feel was only shown once in the raimi movies. If I came off as offensive it was not my intention I just disagree with some of what you said and I do respect your opinion.
EdgyOutsider - 11/12/2012, 12:30 PM
Shadow101: It was a deleted scene. I think that cause of that, they could bring him back in the sequel for a bigger, more important role or mention why he isn't in the movie.

ItalianSpider: Okay, I really liked TASM. But, your statement is wrong. You are a biased fan who thinks Spider-Man and anything Spider-Man related is the best thing since sliced bread. You don't have an open mind, in my opinion. Remember your comment on how TASM should be nominated for best visual effects? Yea, that was wrong.

I am still dreading the sequel cause of the villain. If there is a god, they will change the villain lol I can not stand Electro.
evilness - 11/12/2012, 1:34 PM
i have always DESPISED kirsten dunst as mary jane.

for the longest time, i thought i was the only one. nobody else around me seemed to mind her. now that i think about it, most of it had to do with the writing for her (MOST).

she was annoying. she was whiny and cried too much. she was uncharismatic. her romantic moments with peter were devoid of any real soul. she was nothing like her comic book counterpart. she was always in trouble. she ate up too much screentime (i could swear she was given 50% of the screentime in spidey 3, leaving every villain underdeveloped). and to top it all off... sorry if i sound like a jerk here... but she was kind of ugly.
evilness - 11/12/2012, 1:35 PM
^it wasn't until i began frequenting forums on the internet that i found people who hated her as much as i did.

i think the hatedom for her might mostly be comprised of people like me who nobody agreed with about mary jane until they found each other on the internet.
Preston - 11/12/2012, 3:00 PM

Alright, let's be completely honest here. If the girl was a bombshell, we would forgive her hangups. We expect incredibly beautiful women to act irrationally and say/do stupid things.

The real problem is that it's Dunst. The fact that any guy would take that amount of crap from a girl that looks like Dunst is the main problem.

The script would work unchanged with a girl that was drop dead gorgeous. If Peter was a 5(out of 10) and MJ was a 9.5 out of 10, we would be saying something very different at this interchange of ideas.

If the girl was the type of woman that most men would hand over their nuggets coated in gold to hold, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It was the way that she was written, but it isn't what we saw when we saw Dunst.

In Dunst we saw a slightly above average girl acting like she was god's gift to men. Raimi and company wanted us to see a strong beautiful (Aphrodite blessed) woman that didn't need Parker, but wanted to be with him. What the audience saw was a whiny chick with delusions of grandeur. Because no matter how hard Dunst tries, she isn't remotely close to being drop-dead gorgeous.

Here are two fixes for the current problem:

1). Keep the screenplay the same and higher a super beautiful woman that puts Peter Parker to shame (like a Model).

2).Change the screen play to accommodate for a homelier looking Mary Jane (like Dunst).
Preston - 11/12/2012, 3:50 PM

It's sexist, but it is true.

We are visual creatures.

A midget can play a tall man, but we won't buy it. An ugly chick can pretend to be a princess, but chances are people won't buy it either.

We all pretend to be PC, but deep down inside we have a ton of biases. It's easier for people to pull the script apart, and say that MJ sucks than say the truth that the chick isn't pretty enough for the role.

The lass also needs to know how to act; and the difference in looks should be like Michael Cera and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. There is a noticeable difference between the two; a guy like him could never land a girl like her (yet he does).

But, yeah, we can go back to: I found Mary Jane annoying. There was just something about the way that she was portrayed that wasn't doing it for me. She was whiny and selfish (that might work better for you).
Preston - 11/12/2012, 4:12 PM

We are visual creatures. We all pretend to be PC, but deep down inside we have a ton of biases. It's easier for people to pull the script apart, and say that MJ sucks than say the truth that the chick isn't pretty enough for the role.

I've revised my original quote to seem more sensible:

I found Mary Jane annoying in the Raimi movies. There was just something about the way that she was portrayed that wasn't doing it for me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but when I figure out what it is, I'll be sure to let you know.

amazingspideygal - 11/12/2012, 4:15 PM
I don't blame Dunst for the miscasting, but the fact is she was horribly miscast for the role. "The Greatest Female in Comic Book Movies", I assume you mean the role of Mary Jane and not Dunst.
Preston - 11/12/2012, 4:30 PM

Wink and Smile

...changing the topic.

Now, I checked out some of your screenplays. I've noticed that you have written some about major characters. Have you ever considered writing some about third-tier characters (see: Blade). It would be an easier pitch to a studio.
Spideyguy94 - 11/12/2012, 5:14 PM
@Battlinmurdock let's just agree to disagree. I think we've both made great points as to what we think and we could go on all day. Again If I came of fas offensive or arrogant it was not my intention. I still think your daredevil scripts are fantastic and should be used for the movies, and this is coming from a guy who's 2nd favourite marvel character and 3rd favourite superhero of all time is daredevil. I really think it nails DD in a nutshell
GoodGuy - 11/12/2012, 6:14 PM
Good editorial BattlinMurdock!

I think a big reason why people dislike Dunst's MJ was because they're seeing it from a one-way lens. Being a story told from Spidey's point of view, they see her as "someone who gives Spider-man problems" instead of someone who has needs. I too believe that i was like that before.

Being a naive teenager who still has a lot to learn, I was able to relate and enjoy the more "ideal" relationship between Peter and Gwen in TASM. I believe they nailed a realistic starting relationship.

However, one thing I'm smart enough to recognize is that while we get the idea they are COMPATIBLE, we never truly see that their relationship is strong enough to last hardships. And with that I completely agree with you.

Im hoping in the future that they have a Peter-MJ relationship like the comics (especially in the sins past arc) in the new series. I want MJ to be: outspoken, strong, and assertive yet sensitive and not stereotypically tough. I want to see both the dramatic and the fun side to their relationship (it seems as if movies sometimes forget about the fun side of a relationship to focus on hardships).

Whew, what a mouthful. Anyway, this was a great editorial that is bound to open minds. It surely opened mine. Thanks, man.
Platinum - 11/12/2012, 7:21 PM
Gwen in the new film didn't feel like a character more like a convenient plot device for when peter needed something done or to move the plot along she felt completely one dimensional and it didn't make sense as to why she falls completely head over heels without much development between the two she also fell out of the movie at points and all we pretty much get is she liked that he stood up for that nerd which is the only reason that scene probably exists, but peter later screws over a nerd at oscorp and thats okay to her even finds peter charming, they paint her as a no nonsense girl when it comes to flash but when it comes to peter she overlooks everything he does kinda hypocritical, i found her very unlikable.
evilness - 11/12/2012, 11:54 PM

i don't think that's it exactly.

the thing is that she was terrible on all accounts. the acting, and the writing for her. and then a secondary problem was that to top it all off, she wasn't even good looking to at least be easy on the eyes.

ok, if in your opinion she looks fine then just hold onto that opinion. but for me, i went to see the first spidey film with my girlfriend. now mind you, i've had a boner for the comic book MJ forever at this point and really didn't look much at promotional material before going into this film ("spidey has a film! awesome, let's go see it now"). but when i saw MJ pop-up, i was depressed that the girl i was gonna nail that night was way hotter than dunst. that put kind of big dent in how i saw the character after that. all thanks to kirsten '[frick]-ugly' dunst.
Kalel219 - 11/13/2012, 1:27 AM

Seriously, you do know you're complaining that a real life person was hotter then a [frick]ing drawing right?

How sad can you get...
marvel72 - 11/13/2012, 4:13 AM
i couldn't stand dunst as mary jane.mary jane is meant to be a hot model just like in the comics,dunst isn't even hot.
Platinum - 11/13/2012, 6:06 PM

I agree, its still the girl of HIS dreams in his eyes shes probably the most beautiful girl on the planet, his love for her feels genuine so to me thats all that really mattered making her model hot wouldn't have changed anything.

She was a complete jerk in SM3 though, but I do understand how people begin to see everything another person does as selfish and inconsiderate, she went about it the wrong way and ultimately it did make her unlikable but she still felt like a real person.
evilness - 11/13/2012, 11:12 PM

-lack of charisma
-lack of chemistry with maguire
-cheesy actress
-writing was weak which made her out to be a whiny annoying little distraction
-too much screentime
-to top it all off, she wasn't even good looking to make up for it all a bit

if you want to disagree. provide points of argument. all whining does is prove that you're an immature petulant little kid who can't admit that someone has an opinion different to theirs
AC1 - 11/14/2012, 6:16 AM
I don't think the character was written too badly (in context with the writing of the entire trilogy, which was never spectacular to begin with) it was Dunst's portrayal of the character which has always been a problem. She really phoned in the performances and made the character thoroughly unlikable. She had no charisma, and no enthusiasm. You could tell that it was pretty much all about the paycheck for her.

Emma Stone as Gwen in the new film is far superior - she has fantastic chemistry with Andrew's Peter (enough to actually start a real life relationship between the two), great charisma and charm, very pretty, seemed to actually care about the role.
RSDhillon - 11/15/2012, 7:54 PM
My main gripe isn't Dunst's fault, it's the writers'.
This MJ is not the one I'm reading about in the Lee/Ditko/Romita comics.

Also, Parker is kind of a dick when he becomes Spider-Man.
Yeah, in the comics, too.
Parker2017 - 11/19/2012, 2:16 AM
BattlinMurdock Said:
"Gwen Stacy in the new movie always felt like she completely served Peter's character. Like she only exists as part of the narrative and not as someone who is, I suppose, a genuine person.

She's even a pivotal moment of the climax, helping Peter by going to OSCORP to stop the Lizard. But she's sensationally uninteresting to me. All she does is study and work an internship at OSCORP. I often feel like her character only has a life when she's onscreen, which is not something I feel for MJ in the Raimi films.

I feel like you could make an MJ movie based on what we've seen of her, even from the first film alone. I can't say that of Stacy."
Can't agree more. Then agina, I still feel like she felt like a fusion of Gwen and Mj, as in J. Campbell Scott's MJ with blonde hair as a science geek and not a real person. Sure some can say they relate to blocks then to lego's. But I blame the directing,writing, and a few other things for that happening to "Gwen" I mean I don;t think toby McGuire was this "whiny, crying,etc" character he was in Spider-Man 3, but that was everyone's LAST opinion and encounter with that version.

I STILL think Josh Keaton's Spider-man/Peter Parker and that spectacular spider-man is to me the closet version to Spider-man Mythos itself.

Preston said: "But, yeah, we can go back to: I found Mary Jane annoying. There was just something about the way that she was portrayed that wasn't doing it for me. She was whiny and selfish (that might work better for you)."

Because me and a friend where talking about this actually, He brought up the fact that MJ was a mix and match of ALL of Peters Love interest, I thought she was basically Gwen Agian with small bits off MJ placed in. This article is really well thoguht out of and its good to see soemthign I ahvn;t really thoguth of more.

BattlinMurdok Said: "I'll also say that when I hear comparison of the two films, it almost always goes like this:

People seem to dislike TASM for elements that make it an actual movie. I've heard complaints about the editing (which is atrocious), pacing, development, script...etc. etc. I've heard that the film plays too much for the 3D experience for a "cool" factor, I've heard that the tone is all over the place...when people discuss TASM's flaws, they're often talking about the elements of it as a movie.

When people go back to Raimi's Spider-Man, they pretty much just discuss character or character device. I never hear complaints about how it's slow, draggy, or lacking energy. I never hear about the movie's merits as a movie, just preference to a specific actor or character decision. And I think that really speaks volumes.

Structurally, I think Spider-Man blows TASM out of the water. The characters completely compliment each other without being too similar, the plot never drags or feels slopped together, the editing is crisp and tight, the web-slinging is shown, often times, during the day so we can actually see Peter as Spider-Man, a contrast to the constant night endeavors of TASM where the web-slinging is used for 3D effect. The direction feels like it has a direction. TASM often times just felt like it wasn't going anywhere. Raimi's films felt like they had purpose.

I don't know. I feel bad because TASM not only had to be a good film, but had to prove that it was worth existing. And in my opinion, I just don't feel like it is."

Cue the fans like Lizard1 who will then start using deleted scenes to back up why "TASM" is good. If anyone is going to do that,then, you fail. Sorry , but thats like reaching for straws, not everyone will see them,or has herd of them like me, and I see the film for what it is, regardless if it makes the movie better or not.

But onto MJ, this actully makes me do a double take on the charater and she soudns actully pretty good and better. I don;t agree with this article 100% but I like it, thank you BattlinMurdok.

Parker2017 - 11/19/2012, 2:22 AM
One more thing! Really? so like am I the ONLY person to think Andy and Emma were lagging and just where Meh together? Josh Keaton and Vanessa Marshall and Lacy Cheabert really have FANTASTIC chemistry together. Toby and Kristen had an Okay at best. At worst just stuck in the friends zone. also @ACria really ma'am (or sir, if your a guy or girl not sure) I mean yes the writting had better in soem, and worst in others. So agreeing with you there, but I Don't it's also Dunst 's fault that much ethier, I tihnk ti's Rami's fault at least.
Parker2017 - 11/19/2012, 2:48 PM
To Quote someone: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder. " So to those that say Kristen Dusnt is ugly, fine, I think she's cute. Emma Stone is pretty Average looking to me. Then agian Adele is pretty sexy.
Parker2017 - 11/23/2012, 10:19 AM
"attlinMurdock - 11/12/2012, 8:47 AM
Report Comment

This is always my defense when people say she's selfish.

"Peter, I can't survive without you. I know you think we can't be together, but can't you respect me enough to let me make my own decision? I know there will be risks, but I want to face them with you. It's wrong that we should be half-alive. Half of ourselves. I love you. So here I am standing in your doorway. I've always been standing in your doorway. Isn't it about time somebody saved your life?"

That's it. That's what nails it all home. Because Peter Parker has done nothing but give the first two films. Nothing but give and get things taken away from him. And then, finally, the woman he loves comes to him after all his sacrifice and hardship to save him. And be with him no matter the cost while knowing the cost. Spider-Man 2 is all about the line, "I believe there is a hero in all of us." And, truly, every major character gets their chance to be that hero by the time the credits roll.

Aunt May remains her independent self, Doc Ock redeems himself at the climax, Harry chooses not to kill Peter to save MJ (despite his rage), Peter returns to being Spider-Man, and Mary Jane literally abandons fame (there has to be public backlash for leaving Jameson) and fortune for something she believes is true and right.

I can't claim what TASM2 will have, but it certainly has a lot to take up."

^This, just right here that final scene and what you siad pretty could sum up MJ, even though I still think Vanessa Marshell WAS Mary Jane.
ReNeMysterio619 - 12/21/2012, 8:03 PM

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.