Originally Posted by
Revolutionary_Jack
I disagree with that. I think Kirsten Dunst's MJ got a lot of undue hate and dislike and in response people internalized those complaints to separate her from the comics' character. Kirsten's Mary Jane is more or less the character that Conway-Defalco wrote. She's a compassionate person who is a product of an abusive home and she likes both Peter and Spider-Man. So she is largely comics' MJ in spirit.
The thing is Spider-Man 1 and 2 is structured like a classic love story and romantic story. It's all about Boy meets Girl and the back-and-forth that goes there. Once that structure came in, they altered both Peter and MJ to fit that mold. So Tobey's Peter is pretty meek and a punching bag who lets Harry Osborn run all over him (I mean that scene where a drunken Harry slaps Peter in Spider-Man 2 at the party was the moment I lost respect for Raimi's movies as an adaptation of the comics and character...616 Peter would never have taken that, not Ditko, nor Romita, nor Conway, nor Stern and Defalco). While Dunst's MJ suffers from barely concealed self-loathing and depression which is probably more realistic as an approach than comics' MJ "nothing ever bothers me" (fake smile) and so on. So the story is about both of them overcoming internal and external obstacles to be with each other. It's basically Titanic, the romance between Jack and Rose has a similar structure. Of course Jack and Rose are fuller and more deeply realized characters than Raimi's Peter and MJ but that's because of the superhero story and premise than anything else.
People completely misunderstand the most famous scene in Spider-Man 1, the kiss in that alleyway. That scene comes after Goblin kidnaps Spider-Man and tells him that the society is scum who will always hate him for all the good he does, and then there's a montage where Jameson vilifies Spider-Man. In that scene in the alleyway, MJ restores Spider-Man's faith, that there will always be people who can see the truth and not just listen to what the Bugle says or go along with Goblin's views on humanity. That gives Peter strength to turn against Goblin when he meets him in the burning building. I mean that scene totally destroys that ridiculous concept of "MJ liking Spider-Man more than Peter"...the difference from that and Lois/Superman/Clark is that Spider-Man is a disliked figure. For MJ to like Spider-Man at his most disliked means that deep down she does truly love the real Peter Parker. And that scene is absolutely true to Mary Jane's character in the comics and the basic humanity she represents in the stories. No way, could that scene ever have worked with either Betty Brant or Gwen Stacy.
As for MJ being a damsel-in-distress, I agree that's a problem but moreso in the sequels which I think are inferior and weaker than the first across-the-board. In Spider-Man 1, Norman Osborn kidnapping MJ at the end was logically set-up. It was an escalation from when he attacked Aunt May right before, and it was a payoff to the Thanksgiving scene (best damn scene in the whole trilogy). Whereas in Spider-Man 2, Meat-Puppet-Tentacle Man (calling itself Dr. Octopus) has no real reason to kidnap MJ there. It's like an afterthought. Ditto with the third movie.
Kirsten's MJ is much truer to the comics' character than Tobey's Peter. I mean in terms of fidelity to comics' character it would be Simmons/Jameson > Harris/Aunt May > Dafoe/Goblin > Dunst/MJ > Tobey/Peter > Franco/Harry > Topher/Venom > Haden Church/Sandman > Molina/Ock.