Thread Drift: Spider-Gwen VS Mary Jane

[Celgress]

She's not. She's just as horribly written as everything else in those movies. Stone was just able to carry that material better because of her natural charisma and talent.

To each their own. I enjoyed how Gwen was written in those movies. I thought she was well rounded as a character with clearly defined characteristics and motivation.

[NC_Yankee]

To each their own. I enjoyed how Gwen was written in those movies. I thought she was well rounded as a character with clearly defined characteristics and motivation.

I really liked Gwen in the movies. If you compare her to 616, it is not even close. Emma Stone wins. If you go back even before ASM 121, you see the seeds of her no longer being Peter’ True Love.” The unmasking issues, the drug issues and of course the death of Captain Stacy and its aftermath, all designed to have MJ take over ( which she did in ASM 122). By comparison, Kristen Dunst ( MJ) was written out of ASM 3 because of how good a character Emma Stone’s Gwen was. To be fair, I have not followed the cartoons closely so I will not comment on what I have not seen. But based on what I have seen or read. This is my Parker Woman ranking. 1: Renew Your Vows MJ 2: Into The Spider-Verse MJ. Pre ( and so far post Slott) MJ. 4: Emma Stone Gwen.

[Spider-Tiger]

I really liked Gwen in the movies. If you compare her to 616, it is not even close. Emma Stone wins. If you go back even before ASM 121, you see the seeds of her no longer being Peter’ True Love.” The unmasking issues, the drug issues and of course the death of Captain Stacy and its aftermath, all designed to have MJ take over ( which she did in ASM 122). By comparison, Kristen Dunst ( MJ) was written out of ASM 3 because of how good a character Emma Stone’s Gwen was. To be fair, I have not followed the cartoons closely so I will not comment on what I have not seen. But based on what I have seen or read. This is my Parker Woman ranking. 1: Renew Your Vows MJ 2: Into The Spider-Verse MJ. Pre ( and so far post Slott) MJ. 4: Emma Stone Gwen.

Not really. The drug trilogy in particular painted MJ in a rather unflattering light. Stan wanted Gwen to be Peter's love interest at that time. It's just that Stan wasn't particularly good at writing likable or dimensional female protagonists. MJ's popularity was more by accident than by design, and the writers didn't ship Peter and MJ until Conway came along.

As far as Gwen goes in TASM, I have to agree that the character on paper wasn't particularly interesting or dimensional. She was a really over-idealized love interest. However, the character came across well on screen in part due to Emma Stone's acting (which seemed to involve some of her own improvisation) and Webb's directorial strengths (romance.) The character was written knowing she would die, and the goal was simply for audiences to fall in love with her so they'd mourn her later. In that I suppose they succeeded.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The drug trilogy in particular painted MJ in a rather unflattering light.

It painted her in what Lee intended was unflattering but not so from a later perspective. The Drug Trilogy is intended for you to sympathize with Harry Osborn being a drug addict and a needy boyfriend while MJ is supposed to be extra-understanding of him. But today, it's obvious that Harry is a trainwreck and that it's unfair to expect MJ to mother a dude who can't take care for himself.

Stan wanted Gwen to be Peter's love interest at that time. It's just that Stan wasn't particularly good at writing likable or dimensional female protagonists. MJ's popularity was more by accident than by design, and the writers didn't ship Peter and MJ until Conway came along.

True. I mean look at Reed and Sue Richards in the time that Lee wrote them. Or Silver Age Matt and Karen Page (as opposed to Frank Miller's BORN AGAIN which made them the protagonist of the single greatest love story in Marvel history albeit at the expense of Karen to some extent).

As far as Gwen goes in TASM, I have to agree that the character on paper wasn't particularly interesting or dimensional. She was a pretty basic idealized love interest. However, the character came across well on screen in part due to Emma Stone's acting (which seemed to involve some of her own improvisation) and Webb's directorial strengths (romance.) The character was written knowing she would die, and the goal was simply for audiences to fall in love with her so they'd mourn her later. In that I suppose they succeeded.

Marc Webb and the entire production team utterly misunderstood Gwen Stacy and The Night Gwen Stacy Died. They changed Gwen in the movies so much that they defeated the entire purpose of that story (namely that Gwen was disposable but at the same time significant to Peter, and that she was a bland character that most fans disliked at the time) and yet those changes were made to tell that story.

[Agent Z]

She's not. She's just as horribly written as everything else in those movies. Stone was just able to carry that material better because of her natural charisma and talent.

If anything, she's one of the few things consistently written well in both movies. She's smart, helpful and understanding - a combination you don't see often in superhero movie love interests

[Spider-Tiger]

It painted her in what Lee intended was unflattering but not so from a later perspective. The Drug Trilogy is intended for you to sympathize with Harry Osborn being a drug addict and a needy boyfriend while MJ is supposed to be extra-understanding of him. But today, it's obvious that Harry is a trainwreck and that it's unfair to expect MJ to mother a dude who can't take care for himself.

Oh I agree. I think quite a bit of what Lee did with MJ was intended to be unflattering, but really had the opposite effect. She was the girl you would "date, but not marry", which also meant she was given more agency and personality than the competition.

Marc Webb and the entire production team utterly misunderstood Gwen Stacy and The Night Gwen Stacy Died. They changed Gwen in the movies so much that they defeated the entire purpose of that story (namely that Gwen was disposable but at the same time significant to Peter, and that she was a bland character that most fans disliked at the time) and yet those changes were made to tell that story.

If I recall correctly, Webb or Garfield likened the story to "Romeo and Juliet" so yeah I don't think the production team really understood the intent behind the story. They interpreted TNGSD as a tragedy when it's really an origin story. It's not surprising that the franchise ended there.

[Agent Z]

It painted her in what Lee intended was unflattering but not so from a later perspective. The Drug Trilogy is intended for you to sympathize with Harry Osborn being a drug addict and a needy boyfriend while MJ is supposed to be extra-understanding of him. But today, it's obvious that Harry is a trainwreck and that it's unfair to expect MJ to mother a dude who can't take care for himself.



True. I mean look at Reed and Sue Richards in the time that Lee wrote them. Or Silver Age Matt and Karen Page (as opposed to Frank Miller's BORN AGAIN which made them the protagonist of the single greatest love story in Marvel history albeit at the expense of Karen to some extent).



Marc Webb and the entire production team utterly misunderstood Gwen Stacy and The Night Gwen Stacy Died. They changed Gwen in the movies so much that they defeated the entire purpose of that story (namely that Gwen was disposable but at the same time significant to Peter, and that she was a bland character that most fans disliked at the time) and yet those changes were made to tell that story.

Or maybe they just didn't agree with the story.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If I recall correctly, Webb likened the story to "Romeo and Juliet" so yeah I don't think the production team really understood the intent behind the story.

It's only "Romeo and Juliet" if both Peter and she die. And in any case, in the original Lee- run, George Stacy approved of Peter's relationship with Gwen, that was in fact why his death was so heartbreaking and among the reasons I hate the series is that they made a mess of "The Death of Captain Stacy". Him becoming a classic "stay away from my daughter" Dad was a terrible creative decision.

They interpreted TNGSD as a tragedy when it's really an origin story. It's not surprising that the franchise ended there.

Gerry Conway in an interview pointed out that the only way out was to do the original Clone Saga for Part 3...and I don't think any producer will even think of bringing the clone saga even the original better version to live action.

Or maybe they just didn't agree with the story.

To have a real disagreement, you need to at least have some understanding of the story to start with. So that way you can make a case about why it should be altered or made different.

Alan Moore disagreed with Steve Ditko's politics but in Watchmen, in the character of Rorscharch (who is both a homage to and critique of Ditko), he also made it clear that he understood Ditko and takes him seriously, and that he accepts that someone like that or with that philosophy would come from a real place.

[Spider-Tiger]

Gerry Conway in an interview pointed out that the only way out was to do the original Clone Saga for Part 3...and I don't think any producer will even think of bringing the clone saga even the original better version to live action.

I wouldn't have ruled it out. They had a lot of weird concepts floating around in TASM2. Maybe they would have considered it if only to bring back Emma Stone. That being said, I doubt it would've played out like the comics. MJ would have had none of the set-up by part 3 for that story to work as intended.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I wouldn't have ruled it out. They had a lot of weird concepts floating around in TASM2. Maybe they would have considered it if only to bring back Emma Stone. That being said, I doubt it would've played out like the comics. MJ would have had none of the set-up by part 3 for that story to work as intended.

Exactly.

There's that line in Spider-Man Blue where Peter narrates, "You can't tell the story of me and Gwen Stacy without Mary Jane" and that's ultimately the case. Basically the producers should have adapted Spider-Man Blue, complete with narration, tapes, and flashbacks. That could have maybe allowed for a more interesting style, and the romanticism of that would have suited Marc Webb better.

In the movies, they set up Gwen too much in the first two movies that even if Shailene Woodley (who would have been a fine choice for the part) arrived, she would not have been able to upstage Emma Gwen the way it happened in the comics. Ultimately in the movies the story you tell is told through casting, who you cast and how big their roles are.

[NC_Yankee]

Exactly.

There's that line in Spider-Man Blue where Peter narrates, "You can't tell the story of me and Gwen Stacy without Mary Jane" and that's ultimately the case. Basically the producers should have adapted Spider-Man Blue, complete with narration, tapes, and flashbacks. That could have maybe allowed for a more interesting style, and the romanticism of that would have suited Marc Webb better.

In the movies, they set up Gwen too much in the first two movies that even if Shailene Woodley (who would have been a fine choice for the part) arrived, she would not have been able to upstage Emma Gwen the way it happened in the comics. Ultimately in the movies the story you tell is told through casting, who you cast and how big their roles are.

While the casting is important (See Emma Stone. Compare her to Garfield who I consider the worst Peter). I actually think the biggest thing in movies ( and for that matter any medium) is the story. I have seen Romeo and Juliet brought up with Pete and Gwen, but why is Romeo and Juliet still around hundreds of years after Shakespeare died? Because like Hamlet and King Lear it is a great story.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

While the casting is important (See Emma Stone. Compare her to Garfield who I consider the worst Peter). I actually think the biggest thing in movies ( and for that matter any medium) is the story.

There are a lot of movies with good stories undone by poor casting, and a lot of movies with okay stories that are saved by great casting.

Take CASABLANCA. As a story and plot it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (as the writers on that film admitted as much), it's also pretty corny in a lot of respect, but what elevates that movie is the casting. Same with the TV Show FRIENDS. It's not a very original show in terms of concept, and a lot of the humor is pretty cliche and commonplace (stuff for which it's facing a backlash today) but the cast had the right chemistry with each other and they made the concept work better than a lot of better written sitcoms.

I mean The Amazing Spider-Man by Marc Webb is not a well-written romance if you look at it from a writing perspective. Peter is a little too creepy and fixated on Gwen, in the first movie. There's absolutely no reason given for why these two like each other. Peter's also a straight-up jerk to her family during the dinner scene. (None of this happened in the comics). What made it work was the actors and casting selling the romance more than the writing is.

[NC_Yankee]

There are a lot of movies with good stories undone by poor casting, and a lot of movies with okay stories that are saved by great casting.

Take CASABLANCA. As a story and plot it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (as the writers on that film admitted as much), it's also pretty corny in a lot of respect, but what elevates that movie is the casting. Same with the TV Show FRIENDS. It's not a very original show in terms of concept, and a lot of the humor is pretty cliche and commonplace (stuff for which it's facing a backlash today) but the cast had the right chemistry with each other and they made the concept work better than a lot of better written sitcoms.

I mean The Amazing Spider-Man by Marc Webb is not a well-written romance if you look at it from a writing perspective. Peter is a little too creepy and fixated on Gwen, in the first movie. There's absolutely no reason given for why these two like each other. Peter's also a straight-up jerk to her family during the dinner scene. (None of this happened in the comics). What made it work was the actors and casting selling the romance more than the writing is.

You bring up Casablanca. For the first 10 years of his career, Humphrey Bogart was usually cast as a bad guy and generally in supporting roles ( including as a Mexican against Errol Flynn). One reason is they never found the right script for him ( until John Huston and the Maltese Falcon). Did this mean Bogart could not act? No he did plenty of movies that are considered classics: The Petrified Forrest, Angels With Dirty Faces ( I am a huge Cagney fan), and Dead End to name a few ( but none were for Bogart). Taking this to Spider-Man if you made a list of the greatest stories of all-time only two: Master Planner Saga ( ASM 31-33) and of course, ASM 121-122 have anything to do with Gwen. Oddly enough my favorite issues ever are ASM 33 and 122 where Gwen is not the focus: Peter is. It took the movie to show the best Gwen ( thanks to the story and Emma Stone). As for Gwen ( original), I think her best story was Spider-Man Blue, and even there MJ looks to be the he most sympathetic. Remember MJ saying “Tell Gwen Hi for me, I miss her too.”