I came off too strong and I am sorry for that.
It's just that as I said I am weary of people picking apart and being hyper-critical of everything with Mary Jane in adaptations. Focusing on, what seems to me, inessential stuff over essential stuff.
In the case of the Raimi movies, Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane is by and large the Mary Jane of the comics from the Conway-Stern-Defalco eras, aka the Mary Jane of the majority of comics at the time of the movie's release and subsequent continuity. The original Lee-Romita characterization of MJ would never have sufficed for a character to serve as the heroine and co-lead of the story. And whenever people bring up KD's MJ not being the original MJ they bring up the Lee-Romita characterization which is essentially a cudgel to attack her later development.
She's more serious and less flighty but so is Tobey Maguire's Peter. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies are primarily dramatic stuff with comedic and romance elements. So that's how they configured the characters.
If you squint you can sorta see Liz Allan because they put MJ in high school, if you squint another way, you can apparently see Gwen (I do need to ask what people mean by the word "Gwen" because rich daddy's girl who hates Spider-Man isn't at all KD's MJ) but these are superficial in the overall sense. Okay, MJ is popular girl at Midtown like Liz Allan but she's never rude or snobbish to Peter, she's in fact quite kind to him (that doesn't explain her dating a guy who's a jerk to Peter, but the movie isn't built to answer those questions). In the high school graduation scene, where Liz and Peter have that poignant farewell moment in the Lee-Ditko run, we don't see any comparative moment for Mary Jane.
What's more important is how much MJ borrows from other characters, presumably, but still remains MJ. That's what counts.