Spider-Man 3: No Way Home

[Jman27]

Did you know Spidey fights Doc Ock on a bridge in the Iron Spider suit ?

I'm guessing it's going to get destroyed to set up that his new suit will be stronger than that one

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I will say that while I'm not excited for Holland's Spidey, I love everything we've seen with Peter and MJ. I felt the same way when watching Peter and Liz interact in Homecoming. Anytime this Peter interacts with those ladies, he feels like a real three-dimensional person, and so do they. It's nothing like his interactions with Ned. I genuinely can't wait to see more of Holland and Zendaya together.

[Frontier]

I will say that while I'm not excited for Holland's Spidey, I love everything we've seen with Peter and MJ. I felt the same way when watching Peter and Liz interact in Homecoming. Anytime this Peter interacts with those ladies, he feels like a real three-dimensional person, and so do they. It's nothing like his interactions with Ned. I genuinely can't wait to see more of Holland and Zendaya together.

Tom Holland is Zendaya's favorite celebrity .

I will say I feel like she was done a disservice to not be a straight-up Mary Jane and to not be written that way from the outset.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I wish they didn't play it safe and called her Mary Jane (and gave her the red hair). It was cowardly of the studios to change her name and not own the fact they cast a minority as MJ. If this is supposed to be a "modern" and "realistic" take on Gen-Z teens, own it.

That said, Zendaya's MJ is great and probably the closest to an actual Gen-Z. Even with the changes they made, it's not a dealbreaker for me. I would still take her over Dunst's MJ or even Ultimate MJ.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I wish they didn't play it safe and called her Mary Jane (and gave her the red hair). It was cowardly of the studios to change her name and not own the fact they cast a minority as MJ. If this is supposed to be a "modern" and "realistic" take on Gen-Z teens, own it.

That said, Zendaya's MJ is great and probably the closest to an actual Gen-Z. Even with the changes they made, it's not a dealbreaker for me. I would still take her over Dunst's MJ or even Ultimate MJ.

Zendaya felt far more like MJ than Tom Holland did as Peter. I hope in NWH they do a quiet retcon where they toss-it in that her real name is Mary Jane Watson and "Michelle Jones" was some name or alias she adopted.

I happen to like Dunst's MJ (at least in the first film, the later films didn't give her a lot to work with for the most part) so I wouldn't make this any kind of fight but certainly Mary Jane as a character should be open to different actresses to take as and where they choose.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Btw, Morbius looks bland.

Zendaya felt far more like MJ than Tom Holland did as Peter. I hope in NWH they do a quiet retcon where they toss-it in that her real name is Mary Jane Watson and "Michelle Jones" was some name or alias she adopted.

If it turns out this MJ still aspires to be an actress, she can always take 'Mary Jane' as a stage name and maybe even get to a point where she feels her stage name fits her more than her birth name. It happens with real-life actors all the time.

I happen to like Dunst's MJ (at least in the first film, the later films didn't give her a lot to work with for the most part) so I wouldn't make this any kind of fight but certainly Mary Jane as a character should be open to different actresses to take as and where they choose.

I rewatched the first one recently and was surprised that I liked her in it. I do think Peter/Harry/MJ were at their best in the first one, both as actors and in terms of how they were written.

I agree that MJ should be open to different actresses and interpretations.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Btw, Morbius looks bland.

Won't be seeing that film but I hope it does well in the same way I hope Biden succeeds as a president in favor of the alternative of a Trump presidency, lol. A Sony movie doing well ensures that Sony keeps Spider-Man rights and gives them leverage over MCU. I haven't seen Venom 2 either but I'm happy it's doing well (and to be honest it seems Sony is having a good year so far).

If it turns out this MJ still aspires to be an actress, she can always take 'Mary Jane' as a stage name and maybe even get to a point where she feels her stage name fits her more than her birth name. It happens with real-life actors all the time.

Especially considering that her actress goes by her first name rather than Zendaya Coleman. Though that might be a Beyonce thing though since she also started out as a musician. Musicians change their names more often, like Lady Gaga is still credited that way even now she's becoming an actress and not using her original name of Stefani Germanotta.

Actors nowadays use their real names and few do the stage names stuff anymore. Time was that "Timothee Chalamet" would have been altered to Tim Hamlet or something like that but certainly back in the day Archibald Leach had to become Cary Grant and Norma Jeane of course had to come Marilyn Monroe.

I rewatched the first one recently and was surprised that I liked her in it. I do think Peter/Harry/MJ were at their best in the first one, both as actors and in terms of how they were written.

Yeah.

The movie's subplots didn't serialize well after the first film, and you see it especially with the supporting casts. That's why I've always resisted the idea that Spider-Man 2 was the best of the films because better in terms of what? In terms of the supporting cast, barring that scene with Rosemary Harris' Aunt May and the final scene with MJ it was mostly people not given anything to do. In the case of Franco's Harry, his behavior especially in the second film made it hard to accept he was ever any kind of a good friend. I mean slapping Peter in a party when drunk, and not even apologizing for that. That kind of stuff ends friendships in the real world, it's a hard red line and it basically implies that Peter was some doormat who let his rich friend abuse and exploit him because he was that lonely and desperate and that adds toxicity.

With MJ, the problem is that the last scene in the graveyard of SM-1 implied that she had a hint that Peter was Spider-man and in the sequel there's no follow-up to that. She finds out at the end by accident during the last fight with Otto. She doesn't put it together and without her doing that, it's like something was missing. The stuff in the early part with her calling out Tobey Maguire's Peter for his passive aggressive hot-cold relationship giving her mixed messages and so on was good but that stuff flies with that dumb engagement thing which literally doesn't add anything and was obviously something she was doing to make Peter jealous and get him to own up to how he felt, but it was too bad-TV for that kind of film.

[David Walton]

Maguire/Dunst perfectly captured the Lee/Romita "college gang" era feel but through a post-marriage lens (i.e. knowing where it's headed with MJ as "the one" and both Peter and MJ's capacity for growth).

Pete and MJ as flawed but wonderful human beings capable of complete self-absorption, genuine self-sacrifice, and everything in between.

None of the other live action versions have quite gotten that delicate balance IMO. The Webb films leaned a little too hard into Peter's arrogance, with him deliberately flouting Captain Stacy's dying wish (why they didn't adapt his comic book request that Peter PROTECT Gwen, I'll never know). And the Watts version seems to overcompensate in the other direction, where you struggle to find any kind of relatable flaw for Peter or Michelle.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Maguire/Dunst perfectly captured the Lee/Romita "college gang" era feel but through a post-marriage lens (i.e. knowing where it's headed with MJ as "the one" and both Peter and MJ's capacity for growth).

Pete and MJ as flawed but wonderful human beings capable of complete self-absorption, genuine self-sacrifice, and everything in between.

None of the other live action versions have quite gotten that delicate balance IMO. The Webb films leaned a little too hard into Peter's arrogance, with him deliberately flouting Captain Stacy's dying wish (why they didn't adapt his comic book request that Peter PROTECT Gwen, I'll never know). And the Watts version seems to overcompensate in the other direction, where you struggle to find any kind of relatable flaw for Peter or Michelle.

The Raimi movies were openly centered around a love story. Sam Raimi said that his movies should be seen as about the relationship of Peter and Mary Jane first, and Spider-Man second. Whereas the Marc Webb movies are centered around Peter's secret past with his Dad, the Gwen romance is instrumental to that but the movies aren't really about them.

Jon Watts movies place the romance at a third rung, so it's Peter-Stark mentorship first, Peter-Ganke bro-friendship second, and then Peter/MJ.

All three live-action movies make a mistake in privileging a "male best friend" as a center of gravity imo. Peter in the comics doesn't have any of that. He's heterosocial, he prefers the company of women to men, and none of his male best friends are ever really close to him in the comics, as any of his girlfriends. That's one thing in the comics right from the Lee-Ditko era down that's always been unique and against the contemporary pop culture trends, but in movies dominated by those trends, they tend to get elided.

Each of the films have a weird take on squaring that, so the Raimi films have Peter pine for MJ but Harry is still the shoulder to cry (though also an ambiguous abusive friend). The first Marc Webb film got the friendlessness right but the sequel retconned Harry into Peter's backstory as this childhood friend, so that sucked. The MCU Tom Holland is just some bland guy without any edges. He's not a character, he's market-research demographic self-insert about zoomers.

[Frontier]

The Raimi movies were openly centered around a love story. Sam Raimi said that his movies should be seen as about the relationship of Peter and Mary Jane first, and Spider-Man second. Whereas the Marc Webb movies are centered around Peter's secret past with his Dad, the Gwen romance is instrumental to that but the movies aren't really about them.

Jon Watts movies place the romance at a third rung, so it's Peter-Stark mentorship first, Peter-Ganke bro-friendship second, and then Peter/MJ.

All three live-action movies make a mistake in privileging a "male best friend" as a center of gravity imo. Peter in the comics doesn't have any of that. He's heterosocial, he prefers the company of women to men, and none of his male best friends are ever really close to him in the comics, as any of his girlfriends. That's one thing in the comics right from the Lee-Ditko era down that's always been unique and against the contemporary pop culture trends, but in movies dominated by those trends, they tend to get elided.

Each of the films have a weird take on squaring that, so the Raimi films have Peter pine for MJ but Harry is still the shoulder to cry (though also an ambiguous abusive friend). The first Marc Webb film got the friendlessness right but the sequel retconned Harry into Peter's backstory as this childhood friend, so that sucked. The MCU Tom Holland is just some bland guy without any edges. He's not a character, he's market-research demographic self-insert about zoomers.

I mean, Harry's pretty important in terms of his emotional issues and how that factors into the Spidey/Goblin rivalry and how he eventually succeeds his dad in terms of trying to kill Peter.

Of course sometimes it got to be a bit much how adaptions would contrive an excuse for Harry to hate Spider-Man just because it's expected (the Marvel's Spider-Man cartoon was pretty bad about this).

[David Walton]

The movie's subplots didn't serialize well after the first film, and you see it especially with the supporting casts. That's why I've always resisted the idea that Spider-Man 2 was the best of the films because better in terms of what? In terms of the supporting cast, barring that scene with Rosemary Harris' Aunt May and the final scene with MJ it was mostly people not given anything to do. In the case of Franco's Harry, his behavior especially in the second film made it hard to accept he was ever any kind of a good friend. I mean slapping Peter in a party when drunk, and not even apologizing for that. That kind of stuff ends friendships in the real world, it's a hard red line and it basically implies that Peter was some doormat who let his rich friend abuse and exploit him because he was that lonely and desperate and that adds toxicity.

Raimi's Harry Osborn is following the comics' lead in terms of Harry and Peter having an often toxic friendship where their sincere love for each other wins out in the end, but only after they've both made mistakes and suffered irreparable losses.

With MJ, the problem is that the last scene in the graveyard of SM-1 implied that she had a hint that Peter was Spider-man and in the sequel there's no follow-up to that. She finds out at the end by accident during the last fight with Otto. She doesn't put it together and without her doing that, it's like something was missing.

It's definitely implied she knows at the end of SM1, but I've got no problem with them going another direction for SM2. She does say she 'always knew' when Peter unmasks at the end, so it lines up well enough.

The stuff in the early part with her calling out Tobey Maguire's Peter for his passive aggressive hot-cold relationship giving her mixed messages and so on was good but that stuff flies with that dumb engagement thing which literally doesn't add anything and was obviously something she was doing to make Peter jealous and get him to own up to how he felt, but it was too bad-TV for that kind of film.

MJ was clearly confused about her feelings for John Jameson, as evidenced by "the kiss" scene where she confirms to herself that she's still been in love with Peter all along.

And in the "MJ subconsciously knows Peter is Spider-Man" department, she has her fiance mimic the upside down kiss as best she can from the couch.

[Mistah K88]

I wish they didn't play it safe and called her Mary Jane (and gave her the red hair). It was cowardly of the studios to change her name and not own the fact they cast a minority as MJ. If this is supposed to be a "modern" and "realistic" take on Gen-Z teens, own it.

This reminds me of "Robin" in The Dark Knight Rises...it was like "either do it or don't, but giving us this 'halfway' version doesn't do any favors".

That said, Zendaya's MJ is great and probably the closest to an actual Gen-Z. Even with the changes they made, it's not a dealbreaker for me. I would still take her over Dunst's MJ or even Ultimate MJ.

While she has the sarcasm and the wit, I actually would have been interested in how a girl who is an extrovert would come off. Normally introverted nerdy types can be seen as sarcastic and kind of mean without anyone thinking too much of it [and maybe even thinking of it as a positive], but an extrovert with those same traits might be seen differently, so I can see why they would go in a different direction. I will say that I liked how they gave MJ that one moment in the Spectacular animated series with Sally Avril, showing how someone with that kind of wit can turn the tables on someone.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I mean, Harry's pretty important in terms of his emotional issues and how that factors into the Spidey/Goblin rivalry and how he eventually succeeds his dad in terms of trying to kill Peter.

This is a case of "perception management" I suppose. The truth is that most any supporting character in Spider-Man over time has messy drama and issues one way or another.

The issue is that Harry Osborn historically has never been a dominating figure in the supporting cast (the way Mary Jane unquestionably is). Until JMD's run in Spectacular, Harry didn't really have any elevated status and wasn't really seen as Peter's "best friend" or anything. For one thing he wasn't best man at Peter's wedding (that was Flash Thompson) and he was a peripheral supporting player between Conway's departure and JMD on Spectacular. The reason Harry could feature in Spectacular and JMD given a go-ahead to whack him was precisely because he had come to seem marginal at the time. And it was JMD's run that really elevated Harry into a major figure than he had been before.

So when it comes to adapting the films, where the issue is compression and threading stuff, the question could be asked is why privilege Harry over Flash Thompson on one hand, and also as the sequels could continue, why privilege Harry Osborn over J. Jonah Jameson and Robbie Robertson who all become marginal and negligible after the first film, with Jameson reduced to comic relief. Robbie especially gets shortchanged in those movies, since most people who watch the movie barely notice him. The movies distort Harry's role at the expense of everyone else. After the first film, the thing to do would be to write Harry out of the film and continue without him and feature other characters instead.

Raimi's Harry Osborn is following the comics' lead in terms of Harry and Peter having an often toxic friendship where their sincere love for each other wins out in the end, but only after they've both made mistakes and suffered irreparable losses.

I disagree. In the comics, Peter and Harry became friends as equals and on even terms. Harry's insecurity over Peter in the comics makes sense, because the latter was more goodlooking, attractive, and had the whole "working for a living rather than being born rich" thing going for him, i.e. Harry had literal capital but Peter had "social" capital. Whereas in the movies, they made Harry the "cool" friend to a nerd guy, cast an actor who is on paper more conventionally attractive than Tobey Maguire, and it basically makes their relationship unequal, with Peter being exploited by his friend thoroughly. And Tobey's Peter is written as this suffering sad-sack which makes it even worse since he feels disproportionate guilt while Harry is disproportionately allowed to run over him.

In Spider-Man 3, the big tonal problems of that film, is the scene where Symbiote!Peter confronts Harry and he calls him out for being a terrible person but the movie plays that as if this was wrong for Peter to do or say this, which strikes me as a case of complete lack of self-awareness. That scene needed to happen with the real Peter and much earlier for any kind of rational conclusion to the character arc of their friendship. Without that you have Harry Osborn, the rich a--hole inexplicably given multiple second chances who ends up dying conveniently before showing accountability and making amends for the POS he's been.

MJ was clearly confused about her feelings for John Jameson, as evidenced by "the kiss" scene where she confirms to herself that she's still been in love with Peter all along.

The movie takes a "buffet approach" in that you can see the elements spread out in the film that can allow the movie to do CYA and claim that they are landing on their feet and so on but for me that's "mystery box" stuff and not real character development and construction. Yes they have Dunst's MJ confused and skeptical and clearly having doubts but the fact is she doesn't learn or take the final move until the end, and the movie's third act has her as the damsel in distress kidnapped by Ock for basically no reason.

Melodramaticallly, MJ torn between a rich suitor and choosing poor Peter at the end as an act of true love and so on, that works and that's old school, but one the comics did that without using those cliches and having better storytelling and character development, and while purist arguments have its limits I do think it's worth raising when the comics do more unconventional storytelling than the film adaptations (which are supposedly the "higher" medium and so on). From a more rational perspective, it also makes Kirsten Dunst's MJ come off as callous and cruel to Jameson's kid (and fortunately the movie junks that subplot and doesn't refer to it once in SM-3) and also kind of manipulative and that's probably the reason why Raimi's subreddit is generally quite sexist to KD's character even today. The intent is that Mary Jane is this nice and kind person who's struggling against an abusive upbringing and so on, but you can't have that and then have her be callous and so on.

[Frontier]

This is a case of "perception management" I suppose. The truth is that most any supporting character in Spider-Man over time has messy drama and issues one way or another.

The issue is that Harry Osborn historically has never been a dominating figure in the supporting cast (the way Mary Jane unquestionably is). Until JMD's run in Spectacular, Harry didn't really have any elevated status and wasn't really seen as Peter's "best friend" or anything. For one thing he wasn't best man at Peter's wedding (that was Flash Thompson) and he was a peripheral supporting player between Conway's departure and JMD on Spectacular. The reason Harry could feature in Spectacular and JMD given a go-ahead to whack him was precisely because he had come to seem marginal at the time. And it was JMD's run that really elevated Harry into a major figure than he had been before.

So when it comes to adapting the films, where the issue is compression and threading stuff, the question could be asked is why privilege Harry over Flash Thompson on one hand, and also as the sequels could continue, why privilege Harry Osborn over J. Jonah Jameson and Robbie Robertson who all become marginal and negligible after the first film, with Jameson reduced to comic relief. Robbie especially gets shortchanged in those movies, since most people who watch the movie barely notice him. The movies distort Harry's role at the expense of everyone else. After the first film, the thing to do would be to write Harry out of the film and continue without him and feature other characters instead.

I mean, his dad is Spider-Man's Archenemy and they have the tragic friendship angle when he becomes the 2nd Green Goblin. I think that makes him pretty major.

(JJJ still got some amazing scenes in SM2).

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Harry gets priority over Flash and Randy because of the Green Goblin connection. He is the Green Goblin's son and eventually becomes the Green Goblin himself, thus giving Sony the opportunity to use an A-list villain more than once in their franchise. With Flash you couldn't do that until he became a Venom, and with Randy you can't do that period.

I do agree that Harry wasn't a real friend to Peter, like ever. Peter has had much deeper, real friendships with Flash and Randy. Harry and Peter just hung out the most due to being roommates.

While she has the sarcasm and the wit, I actually would have been interested in how a girl who is an extrovert would come off. Normally introverted nerdy types can be seen as sarcastic and kind of mean without anyone thinking too much of it [and maybe even thinking of it as a positive], but an extrovert with those same traits might be seen differently, so I can see why they would go in a different direction. I will say that I liked how they gave MJ that one moment in the Spectacular animated series with Sally Avril, showing how someone with that kind of wit can turn the tables on someone.

That's why 616 and Spectacular MJ will always be my favorite MJ's.