Sony Universe of Marvel (Spider-Man) Characters Movie Thread

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If you can't see her unironically saying "face it, tiger, you just hit the jackpot", is she really the iconic Spider-Man love interest?

There's more to Mary Jane than a catchphrase. The version of the character I was introduced to, whether it's the newspaper strip or anything else wasn't associated with it.

And Kirsten Dunst's MJ never said it either. Nor does the Mary Jane of ITSV.

After all the Mary Jane that ultimately defined the character was Gerry Conway's, also Roger Stern and Tom Defalco, not Stan Lee's.

[Kevinroc]

There's more to Mary Jane than a catchphrase. The version of the character I was introduced to, whether it's the newspaper strip or anything else wasn't associated with it.

And Kirsten Dunst's MJ never said it either. Nor does the Mary Jane of ITSV.

After all the Mary Jane that ultimately defined the character was Gerry Conway's, also Roger Stern and Tom Defalco, not Stan Lee's.

Obviously yes. But introductions are incredibly important and I think this post is underplaying what an iconic moment MJ's introduction was. It will always be incredibly disappointing that Marvel could have put an iconic Spider-Man moment to film, and went for something much more generic (and made the character much more generic afterwards).

But this isn't surprising considering MCU Spider-Man misses some of the most important elements of Spider-Man for the sake of tying him to Iron Man.

[Jman27]

Obviously yes. But introductions are incredibly important and I think this post is underplaying what an iconic moment MJ's introduction was. It will always be incredibly disappointing that Marvel could have put an iconic Spider-Man moment to film, and went for something much more generic (and made the character much more generic afterwards).

But this isn't surprising considering MCU Spider-Man misses some of the most important elements of Spider-Man for the sake of tying him to Iron Man.

basically we just need a hot girl to say "face it tiger" and you good?

[Frontier]

Obviously yes. But introductions are incredibly important and I think this post is underplaying what an iconic moment MJ's introduction was. It will always be incredibly disappointing that Marvel could have put an iconic Spider-Man moment to film, and went for something much more generic (and made the character much more generic afterwards).

But this isn't surprising considering MCU Spider-Man misses some of the most important elements of Spider-Man for the sake of tying him to Iron Man.

Even the Marvel's Spider-Man cartoon had the perfect setup for it and didn't do the line.

basically we just need a hot girl to say "face it tiger" and you good?

The attitude, personality, and Peter being gob-faced are important too .

[Jman27]

Even the Marvel's Spider-Man cartoon had the perfect setup for it and didn't do the line.

The attitude, personality, and Peter being gob-faced are important too :).

yeah cause Peter wasnt expecting her to be hot he thought she was this plain girl that Aunt May was trying to set him up with. Wasnt he trying to get into Betty or Liz at the time? Wouldnt have work if she was plain

[Spider-Tiger]

Stan Lee, Conway, Defalco, it's all one character. And it's her character arc and personality that ideally should define her, but most adaptations seem to divorce her from both.

I agree that she's more than just a catchphrase, but she's also more than just a nickname or a placeholder for Spider-man's love interest.

[Kevinroc]

basically we just need a hot girl to say "face it tiger" and you good?

I would like to see them put iconic Spider-Man moments on film. They've adapted so many other iconic moments at this point. Why has this one still not been done after 8 Spider-Man movies?

Even the Marvel's Spider-Man cartoon had the perfect setup for it and didn't do the line.

I don't think it's a hot take to say that cartoon had a lot of problems.

yeah cause Peter wasnt expecting her to be hot he thought she was this plain girl that Aunt May was trying to set him up with. Wasnt he trying to get into Betty or Liz at the time? Wouldnt have work if she was plain

By the time he actually met MJ, he was starting to realize Gwen might like him.

Stan Lee, Conway, Defalco, it's all one character. And it's her character arc and personality that ideally should define her, but most adaptations seem to divorce her from both.

I agree that she's more than just a catchphrase, but she's also more than just a nickname or a placeholder for Spider-man's love interest.

This is basically what the MCU has reduced her to. To the point that she doesn't even have her actual name.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Stan Lee, Conway, Defalco, it's all one character. And it's her character arc and personality that ideally should define her, but most adaptations seem to divorce her from both.

I agree that she's more than just a catchphrase, but she's also more than just a nickname or a placeholder for Spider-man's love interest.

The fact is that the Mary Jane of the adaptations and across stories doesn't have anything at all to do with the version Stan Lee wrote. The Romita design is of course iconic and important but in general, Mary Jane is the character in the epilogue of ASM#122.

If there's an iconic moment in comics I want to see adapted, ASM#122 epilogue is my preference but again it's so hard to do it without the specifics of the way the story happened in the comics.

And...hey the Upside-Down kiss in Spider-Man 1 gets across the same idea and sentiment and is a totally new thing, and not a retread of a moment of self-repeating comics' mythology.

[Kevinroc]

The fact is that the Mary Jane of the adaptations and across stories doesn't have anything at all to do with the version Stan Lee wrote. The Romita design is of course iconic and important but in general, Mary Jane is the character in the epilogue of ASM#122.

If there's an iconic moment in comics I want to see adapted, ASM#122 epilogue is my preference but again it's so hard to do it without the specifics of the way the story happened in the comics.

And...hey the Upside-Down kiss in Spider-Man 1 gets across the same idea and sentiment and is a totally new thing, and not a retread of a moment of self-repeating comics' mythology.

These films absolutely try to do the most iconic moments from Spider-Man mythology. Homecoming had a big "Spider-Man lifts heavy thing off of himself" like he did in the Master Planner saga.

So why is "Face it, tiger" just not there in any way, shape, or form after 8 films?

[Jman27]

I would like to see them put iconic Spider-Man moments on film. They've adapted so many other iconic moments at this point. Why has this one still not been done after 8 Spider-Man movies?



I don't think it's a hot take to say that cartoon had a lot of problems.



By the time he actually met MJ, he was starting to realize Gwen might like him.



This is basically what the MCU has reduced her to. To the point that she doesn't even have her actual name.

it could still happen would we be around to witness it though I cant answer that

[Kevinroc]

it could still happen would we be around to witness it though I cant answer that

We got "my friends call me MJ" (relying on the audience's pre-existing Spider-Man knowledge).

So, no, it won't happen in the MCU films at this point. And I'm certainly not expecting it in Spider-Verse 2.

[Spider-Tiger]

The epilogue of 122 is probably my favorite MJ moment so I'd love to see it adapted some day. Even if just in animated form.

If I'm not mistaken, the producers cut the jackpot line from the first Spider-man film because they thought it sounded ridiculous (and tbh I have a hard time imagining Raimi's interpretation of MJ saying it.) They do have her call Peter tiger though. I think Shailene Woodley was supposed to say it in one of her deleted TASM2 scenes. Zendaya's MJ is also not Mary Jane so it's not surprising that she hasn't used it yet.

Spider-verse MJ barely had any screen time, but that film relies on iconic moments from the Raimi trilogy to inform their interpretation of the character. She's also an adult MJ so it wouldnt have made sense for them to throw that in (but the final scene where Peter visits her is clearly an homage to her introduction. So was the final scene in Spider-man 2)

[Revolutionary_Jack]

These films absolutely try to do the most iconic moments from Spider-Man mythology. Homecoming had a big "Spider-Man lifts heavy thing off of himself" like he did in the Master Planner saga.

And they f--ked it big time by missing the entire point of it. I'd rather they do their own thing and not futz around with comics moments and make a mess of things.

There are so many million great MJ moments to choose from, and likewise great moments that the Raimi films brought in ("isn't it time someone saved your life?") and other versions. It's like saying you want a shot-by-shot adaptation of AF#15.

So why is "Face it, tiger" just not there in any way, shape, or form after 8 films?

Short answer is comics are comics, films are films.

Long answer:
-- In the comics, Peter met Mary Jane Watson face-to-face 42 issues into the series. And Mary Jane ultimately became the second most important character in the story. In a movie, every film is going to condense material. You talk of 8 Spider-Man movies in various continuities, well there are more than 1000 comics of Spider-Man in 616 alone (ASM+Spectacular+other Satellites). The Raimi movies at best cover proportionately a comics era between 1962 to the mid-80s around the time of Venom's introduction, and that's three films, and that still covers a bigger chunk of comics history than any other Spider-Man we have had onscreen. Only one of them shows Spider-Man as a married man (ITSV). You can't delay introducing the second most important character in the story just for the sake of continuity. So you have to introduce MJ early. At best you can have a first movie in a trilogy cover the Lee-Ditko era and end with Peter graduating and his break-up with Betty Brant, and meeting Gwen in college and the final scene has to end with Peter seeing MJ for the first time. That might work. But now you have the issue of casting.
-- Remember the movie Troy in 2004. Well a big issue with that film is they cast an actress (Diane Kruger) as Helen of Troy, who's the most beautiful woman in mythology, "the face that launched a thousand ships" and instead people complained that she's not hot enough. Because ultimately the introduction with MJ is the same moment. It's that moment where Peter opened a door and saw the most beautiful woman in comics at that time. And the reason for that effect is that you shifted from Ditko and Ditko-drawn characters (like Gwen) to a pure Romita image of beauty. In the comics, MJ had to compare to Kirby-drawn women (Susan Storm, Jane Foster, Janet van Dyne) which nothing against them but Kirby doesn't always draw women with idealized beauty and with Ditko dames (Betty, Liz, Gwen, Clea). So that's why she was able to pull off that dynamite introduction because she looked like nothing like any woman in Marvel at that time. In other words, it's a moment that truly works in comics, specifically serialized monthly comics and it works for reasons that have nothing to do with storytelling, so it's impossible to adapt and would probably not contribute much if one attempted to do it. But in movies, Hollywood actresses tend to be dolled up, and unless you cast people around Peter as somewhat "ugly" and plain (which well is bad optics and not something that would fly today). If you do a movie where Betty Brant is the main romantic lead, you need to cast a proper actress but then she'd be fairly pretty for the romantic story (since you as an audience do need to feel for Peter-Betty in any hypothetical scenario) and then at the end of the movie you need to convince the audience that the new hot actress behind the door is the way to go, and it won't work. It would be hard to pull off and ultimately detrimental.
-- In the case of MJ, the serialized way her and Peter found each other, grew up and dated when both of them matured which is how Weissman wanted to do it, wouldn't work well without resorting to some kind of sitcom chicanery. What that means is you would need to cast the actors in such a way that the actress who plays Gwen gets upstaged by the actress who plays MJ. And that's incredibly hard for one thing, but also something movie agents are incredibly alert about and would be vary about casting any of their clients in such kind of roles. In the Andrew Garfield movies, it was suggested that Shailene Woodleigh be MJ to Emma Gwen and that would never have worked, not because of any fault in the actress and so on, but simply at the time Woodleigh wasn't as big a star as Emma Stone (and she still isn't). It would have hurt MJ's status as IP had they gone ahead with that and it's a good thing that MJ didn't show up in those TASM movies. You can get away with that in sitcoms. Take FRIENDS (not a great show by any means, not one that's grown well) but Ross and Rachel are obviously set up to be the main romance...that means that every relationship or romance either character has along the way has to be a false-lead and usually Friends make that by essentially making the false-lead character normal-at-first before making them bizarre. So if you do that with MJ and Gwen it wouldn't work. Weissman's Spectacular played with this by making Peter and Gwen annoying in the Ross-and-Rachel sense, i.e. this irritating non-functional couple who pine for one another while flirting and dating others, so that eventually the audience would buy that Peter would be better off with MJ who's more stable and honest.

There are so many great MJ moments I'd prefer to see instead:
-- Parallel Lives flashback for instance.
-- MJ telling Peter about her family in ASM#259.
-- Them getting married.
-- The Airport Kiss.
-- Fractions' To Have and to Hold.
To name a few.

[Kevinroc]

The epilogue of 122 is probably my favorite MJ moment so I'd love to see it adapted some day. Even if just in animated form.

If I'm not mistaken, the producers cut the jackpot line from the first Spider-man film because they thought it sounded ridiculous (and tbh I have a hard time imagining Raimi's interpretation of MJ saying it.) They do have her call Peter tiger though. I think Shailene Woodley was supposed to say it in one of her deleted TASM2 scenes. Zendaya's MJ is also not Mary Jane so it's not surprising that she hasn't used it yet.

Spider-verse MJ barely had any screen time, but those films rely on iconic moments from the Raimi trilogy to inform their interpretation of the character. She's also an adult MJ so it wouldnt have made sense for them to throw that in (but the final scene where Peter visits her is clearly an homage to her introduction.)

Doorways have definitely remained iconic imagery in regards to Peter x MJ even in the films. (Like in Spider-Man 2's ending.)

The thing is that the Raimi films and the Ultimate Spider-Man comics (and other Spidey adaptations like Insomniac's game) started with Peter already knowing MJ before the story began. The MCU did not start from that position, but they also thought the audience absolutely already knew who MJ was before going in. So the "my friends call me MJ" was their attempt to try to surprise the audience with her introduction. It's just led to confusion on whether or not the character is meant to be her own independent character or a radical reimaging of the Mary Jane character. And that's... not exactly the best position for a story.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Doorways have definitely remained iconic imagery in regards to Peter x MJ even in the films. (Like in Spider-Man 2's ending.)

The thing is that the Raimi films and the Ultimate Spider-Man comics (and other Spidey adaptations like Insomniac's game) started with Peter already knowing MJ before the story began. The MCU did not start from that position, but they also thought the audience absolutely already knew who MJ was before going in. So the "my friends call me MJ" was their attempt to try to surprise the audience with her introduction. It's just led to confusion on whether or not the character is meant to be her own independent character or a radical reimaging of the Mary Jane character. And that's... not exactly the best position for a story.

The fact is that Mary Jane wasn't introduced or intended by Stan Lee to be the ultimate leading lady of the story (Ditko...maybe but we don't know?). Over time she came to occupy that role and once you do that, the personality that Lee introduced her with in ASM#42 would just not be appropriate for her to play the role effectively, and when you consider the majority of comics and stories she's part of, from the perspective of adaptation you can't simply follow and trace the serialized manner in which she originated.

Again Conway's MJ has completely overwritten Stan's take on the character and a good thing that it did too. Here's the thing MJ learned Peter's identity in ASM#257 (in publication order) and there's never been any walkback with that. The character has changed and she stayed changed. And that's led to other versions as with Bendis' USM and so on.