Five years on can we admit a few things about the Marc Webb reboot?
a) It was too soon
b) It was unnecesarry
c) They should’ve just recast and thereby done a soft reboot
d) It was a shite rendition of Peter Parker’s origin and his pre-Spider-Man self (why is he clearly coded as a hipster/obviously altruistic/has the attention of Gwen before he becomes Spider-Man as is supposed to be an ostracized nerd)
e) The retroactive Raimi movies hate was despicable and shallow and the equivalent of saying “Ugh, that colour is soooooo last year!”
f) Dennis Leary was a shitty Captain Stacy because he was just Dennis Leary
g) Emma Stone was basically playing herself. Which is to say a charming actress to watch but still basically herself, not some groundbreaking performance
h) Emma Stone Gwen wasn’t revolutionary. She did nothing in the movie that Agent Peggy Carter or Pepper Potts, or Black Widow hadn’t done in movies which preceded ASM 2012
i) This movie is one of the single biggest contributors to the unearned bad reputation and bashing Mary Jane gets
j) That parents subplot was literally never interesting
k) That Spider-Man costume is fugly
l) Between the Gwen>MJ wars, the Raimi/Webb, Maguire/Garfield/Holland wars, the morons to shout “NOT ANOTHER ORIGIN STORY!” about the MCU Spider-Man, the lead in to what may well be the most disrespectful Spidey movie ever if the trailers are to be believed, and the “IT SHOULD BE MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILES! HE IS MUCH BETTER THAN BORING PETER PARKER!” bullshit, the Spider-Man fandom would’ve been better off if these at best mediocre Spider-Man movies never existed.
GENTE como eu tava com MUITO tédio mas muito mesmo eu resolvi fazer mais icons então escolhi the bling ring filme que é alto padrão emma e taissa rainhas do mundo apenas, doncaestar créditos ouuu likes no post gatas
“…which makes her one of the best things an already-amazing film.”
Did CBR, the ‘professionally’ written, corporately owned ‘news’ website mean ‘…which makes her one of the best things IN an already-amazing film.’????
Second of all.
“See, her name is Michelle, but at the end of the film she reveals she likes to be called “M.J.” Like Mary Jane Watson, get it? But unlike the “Robin” reveal at the end of The Dark Knight Rises, this doesn’t feel annoying or even slightly like a feint.”
It is absolutely a feint and it the only reason it isn’t annoying is because for most fans it bypassed annoying and went straight to shoving a middle finger in our faces.
The reason CBR doesn’t feel this way is because they kiss Marvel’s ass.
“Michelle isn’t Mary Jane, a character who’s been so central to Spider-Man’s history, both in comics and on the screen, but by bestowing on her the nickname “M.J.,” the filmmakers are likely hinting at the importance she’ll have in Peter’s life.”
If we run with this logic ‘MJ’ as a nickname is just intended as a signpost to the audience saying ‘this character is important because she has a name similar to another important character so watch this space. MAYBE she’ll ALSO be a love interest!”
So by this logic she could’ve been like Michelle Osborn. Or in the new movie we could get a criminal who’s renowned for gentelmanry thievery as they rob diamond exchanges and goes by the name Eddie Brock hinting they will be an evil version of Peter Parker in some way despite being nothing like Eddie Brock at all.
Or fuck it lets do a Superman movie where a isolated nerdy high schooler is in passing derisively called brainiac because ‘it’s hinting’ that he will become ‘important’ and maybe have a similar role to that OTHER character called Brainiac despite being nothing like him.
Can you smell the reak of damage control on this idiotic article?
“The most interesting aspect of the revelation isn’t the name itself, but the dialogue surrounding it: “My friends call me M.J.” The emphasis, by both the filmmakers and the character, isn’t on “M.J.” but rather on “friends.” Peter observes that he didn’t think Michelle had friends, to which she responds that she does now.”
Becoming a member of the decathalon team after barely saying anything to anyone other than blink and you’ll miss it insults and displaying generally isolationist/anti-social behaviour = having friends now? And it’s said to the guy who she literally flipped the bird to for no justifiable reason at all like 2 days before.
“That’s a completely different character than the dance-happy, party-loving Mary Jane who covered her darkness with so much light no one could notice. Michelle is M.J. without all the baggage from decades of comics, or from Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movie series (or even from Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2, from which Shailene Woodley’s scenes as Mary Jane were cut).”
Which is another way of saying she isn’t Mary Jane at all. You might as well say Ned, Toomes and Betty in the movie are ALSO Mary Jane.
And the same goes for Peter. ‘This is Peter Parker without all the emotional baggage and guilt of having killed his father figure by accident and striving to live up to the role model set by him by being heroic despite it causing ramifciations for the normal life he wants’.
Then it isn’t the character then is it so don’t pretend like it is!
“In actuality, Michelle more closely resembles the rebellious Gwen Stacy from Marvel’s Ultimate Spider-Man comics.”
Okay yes COMPARATIVELY speaking she does more closely resemble USM Gwen Stacy. But that’s like saying in Homecoming the Vulture comparatively more closely resembles the Raimi Norman Osborn.
On a superficial level both statements hold up. Raimi Norman and Homecoming Toomes are both guys in a green suits trying to screw over the big shot suits and do right by his family and threatens Spider-Man’s family when he deduces his identity.
Except really they aren’t because critically Norman is an emotionally distant corporate tycoon/single father to a college student who just wants his approval and is living through a Jekyll/Hyde situation whilst Toomes is a working class average joe who commits crimes of scavenging and is actually a decent Dad to a high schooler.
With Michelle vs Ult Gwen both are ‘social outsiders who reject the mainstream and don’t hang out with the school cliques baby!’
And then the comparisons literally stop.
Ult Gwen was someone who would throw her two cents into a conversation or start one up whether or not anybody listened or understood her. She was a punkishly dressed delinquent who loved her policeman Dad but acted out against the authority he represented. Whilst not standing for bullshit from anyone. She literally pulled a knife on Kenny Kong when she saw him bullying Peter, a kid she hardly knew. She showed up at Peter’s house in the middle of the night unannounced (slightly drunk unless I am misremembering) to like hang out and shoot the breeze.
None of that shit pertains to Michelle from Homecoming so the comparison is weak as shit.
But worse, let’s pretend the comparison was on the money.
Why in God’s name is it okay or at all acceptable to make a character who is kinda sort of Mary jane and has her initials as a ‘signpost that she will be important’…and then make her a version of Gwen Stacy?
I know we have all said to varying degrees of derision that Emma Stone’s Gwen was Ultimate Mary Jane but the antidote to that isn’t to then make Mary Jane in any way akin to Ultimate Gwen Stacy.
WTF is wrong with people seriously!
“While Michelle is unlikely to be killed by Carnage in a sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming and then transformed into a version of vampiric organism (aren’t comics great?), there’s a pretty good chance she’ll discover Peter’s secret.”
Does the author even KNOW about Parallel Lives?
Should I even be asking by this point?
“So, Zendaya is Michelle, who is M.J. But she’s definitely not Mary Jane. She’s better.”
How the flying fuck could anybody come to that conclusion?
Mary Jane Watson from the 616 comics is like one of the best female/supporting characters in Marvel comics ever. She’s had 50 years under her belt most of which have been great and showcased a shitton of development. She was bucking social trends in her debut for God’s sake.
The Hell can a character who barely says anything in the course of an entire movie and who when she does talk tends to be just cold or rude somehow magically be better than that?
Well the answers could be
a) CBR like Marvel as a whole has an anti-MJ bias
b) CBR like Marvel as a whole holds MJ’s emotional baggage with disdain because emotional baggage is bad despite it being Spider-Man’s bread and butter. Or maybe because it wasn’t there from the start or some shit like that.
c) CBR are clickbait Marvel mouthpieces
I mean FFS…re-read this article and now outline for me ANY sentences where CBR bothered to point out Michelle’s positive attriubtes.
I’m not even saying she has none. I’m just saying they’ve just said this character who had less than 20 minutes of screen time and like 5 minutes tops of speaking time is somehow better than a 50 year old character who’s been a fan favourite for most of that time and they never once said anything towards WHY the character is actually any good.
All they pointed to was vague bullshit about her now having friends and maybe knowing Peter’s secret identity.
P.S. This article didn’t even fulfill it’s own title because it didn’t really explain much!
Legit when you look at them as just individual characters
within their movies as opposed to adaptations, Maguire’s Spider-Man really is
the best character of the three Spider-Men we have had.
I’m not talking about acting or dialogue here, just who they
are as characters.
Garfield’s Spider-Man has his moments and his baggage but is
generally wither cocky or professing his feelings for Gwen. Holland’s Peter
is…utterly bumbling, incompetent and immature. Maguire’s Spider-Man is
(comparatively) the most mature and the guy who has to deal with the most ramifications
of his actions, truly wrestling with the burden of heroism.
He’s the Spider-Man who’s the most overtly heroic, saving a
child from a burning building when he was powerless for example. He also had
the best over all character arc. He started off as selfish and self-absorbed
before becoming a self-sacrificing hero, then wrestled with the ramifications of
that and then had his ego checked when he got too big for his boots in the last
Garfield’s Spider-Man realizes he needs to be a hero fairly
quickly and irrelevantly because the movie is just going through the motions
and then he doesn’t change until Gwen dies…for about five minutes then he is
back in action.
Holland is a child obsessed with being an Avenger and then
realizes he doesn’t need it. Better than his predecessor, but not a patch on
Maguire Spidey’s arc.
This extends to the supporting cast. Dunst’s MJ and Franco
Harry HAD arcs. Stone’s MJ, Ned, Liz…they really don’t.
And as far as just pure superhero power fantasy is concerned,
Garfield might be the smartest, fastest and most agile Spider-Man, but Maguire
is both the most overtly courageous, down to Earth, relatable, durable and
very, very, very obviously the strongest.
Holland might’ve made a good first impression in Civil War
but he’s a long way off from Garfield’s quips or Maguire stopping that train.
It was Marc’s birthday, and no one paid the slightest attention to the fact that he was becoming an elder, not even his wife; she never looked up from her computer whilst her husband aged in the same room tsk!