Thoughtsvon Andrew Garfield Spider-Man characterization?

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I didn't say it was horrible. *Shrug*

Just pointing out that the character hasn't been forgotten in the slightest. She'll end up with her own movie at some point in the future. We're probably not going to get a "The Amazing Mary Jane" movie.

There's always a potential Jackpot movie . Unless she becomes a superhero/villian she's isn't gonna get a solo film.

Probably... Unless Sony could be that desperate or expiremental ,.

[Kevinroc]

Oh lord, please stop with these absolutes. If you're talking about Gwen being a punching bag by being thrown off a bridge...yeah people sent Conway death threats when he did that.

Anyway, these MJ and Gwen discussions seem to be mighty off-topic. This thread is about Andrew Garfield's performance as Spider-man.

I don't think discussing Gwen specifically is off-topic to the Garfield films because the romance was a huge part of them. That the romance was also terrible should not be forgotten either.

There's always Jackpot .

We'll get "Face it, Tiger" in a movie someday.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I don't think discussing Gwen specifically is off-topic to the Garfield films because the romance was a huge part of them. That the romance was also terrible should not be forgotten either.



We'll get "Face it, Tiger" in a movie someday.

Didn't we get one in the Raimi films? I could've sworn we got one.

[Kevinroc]

Didn't we get one in the Raimi films? I could've sworn we got one.

Nope. The "Face it, tiger" line has never been in a Spider-Man film. (MJ would drop a "tiger" once in a while in those films.)

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Ironically the Parent conspiracy would've been better for the Raimi films. Spiderman 3 felt like the end of an era so they would need a new angle. Having Peter want to exonerate his parents would've been a cool hook for a future 4th film. It's similar to what the 90s cartoon did.

I don't mind the focus on the parents in the first film. It tied into uncle Ben's death in a more interesting way. His obsession with the past lead to Uncle Ben's death.

I think it would've been better if Garfield was playing this character.
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Aaron..._(Earth-31411)

[Agent Z]

Oh lord, please stop with these absolutes. If you're talking about Gwen being a punching bag by being thrown off a bridge...yeah people sent Conway death threats when he did that.

Anyway, these MJ and Gwen discussions seem to be mighty off-topic. This thread is about Andrew Garfield's performance as Spider-man.

What absolutes? And Slott's been harassed and threatened over how he wrote MJ among other things.

I was talking about fan bashing of Gwen which went on for decades.

[Spider-Tiger]

What absolutes? And Slott's been harassed and threatened over how he wrote MJ among other things.

I was talking about fan bashing of Gwen which went on for decades.

“Gwen was a punching bag for longer than 10 years and her fans endured it better” “MJ fans slander Gwen with far worse language.”

First of all, there was no Gwen fandom prior to the last 10 years or so. That’s not a knock on the character. She just wasn’t around enough in the comics or other media to garner much attention.

The last time that Gwen would have had a following would have been in the 70s and the internet didn’t exist then to really gauge fan response. People generally say that MJ was more popular, but all we know is that some people were so incensed by Gwen’s death that they sent Conway death threats via snail mail.

Second of all, you keep making a false equivalence between some nobodies on a message board (no offense Kevinroc) and the actions of a professional writer and a movie star involved in the franchise.

(You still never answered my question about the "worse language" being used to describe Gwen. And seriously just pull up any youtube video of Mary Jane from the Raimi trilogy if you want to really see some disgusting stuff that people say about a character)

[Agent Z]

“Gwen was a punching bag for longer than 10 years and her fans endured it better” “MJ fans slander Gwen with far worse language.”

First of all, there was no Gwen fandom prior to the last 10 years or so. That’s not a knock on the character. She just wasn’t around enough in the comics or other media to garner much attention.

The last time that Gwen would have had a following would have been in the 70s and the internet didn’t exist then to really gauge fan response. People generally say that MJ was more popular, but all we know is that some people were so incensed by Gwen’s death that they sent Conway death threats via snail mail.

Kind of contradicting yourself here.

Second of all, you keep making a false equivalence between some nobodies on a message board (no offense Kevinroc) and the actions of a professional writer and a movie star involved in the franchise.

It's a false equivalence only in the sense that Slott and Stone don't practically make a career out of bashing MJ while MJ fans seem to think you have to hate Gwen to show their appreciation for their favorite character. Stone made a joke on SNL which was scripted by writers who weren't her and Slott has written MJ in a favorable light which people will conveniently ignore. People are only making a big deal about Slott and Stone's celebrity status to deflect from the fandom's unacceptable behavior.

(You still never answered my question about the "worse language" being used to describe Gwen. And seriously just pull up any youtube video of Mary Jane from the Raimi trilogy if you want to really see some disgusting stuff that people say about a character)

You know what's funny? From what I've seen, most of these types of comments are from fans of comic MJ not necessarily Gwen herself.

As for the harsher language which is directed at Gwen? From calling her a white supremacist, to calling her an annoying nag (kind of like what Raimi MJ was accused of), all manner of misogynistic comments, a certain Gwen basher accusing her of "elder abuse" because of one time she got into an argument with May, various misogynistic comments victim blaming her for her own death, this very thread has someone actually complaining that people like Spider-Gwen etc.

There may be one or two versions of MJ that people don't care for but Gwen's mere existence is a point of contention for many people, particularly MJ fans. Go back to page five of this thread and you'll see that this is the comment that started this conversation.

(Peter x MJ gets a lot of flack because she isn't Gwen, who has totally been remembered as Peter's perfect soul mate, and not the broken person that she also was. The Garfield movies absolutely went with the "too good for this sinful earth" and that just isn't the girl who absolutely despised Spider-Man to the point that she willingly worked with an Anti-Spidey scumbag politician.)

Putting aside the completely irrelevant bashing of Gwen in this comment, the beginning sentence isn't even true. Peter and MJ's relationship has gotten flack primarily from people who don't like Spider-Man in a long term relationship with anyone. A segment of the Spider-Man/Black Cat fans are arguably a bigger source of hostility towards that relationship than any Gwen fans. But for some reason, people like to frame this as an MJ vs Gwen thing. At times it makes me feel embarrassed to be an MJ fan.

[Spider-Tiger]

Kind of contradicting yourself here.

I'm sure you were able to comprehend what I meant. But in case I didn't clarify enough: between her death and her recent revival in other media, there wasn't much of a fan following for the character in any measurable way.

It's a false equivalence only in the sense that Slott and Stone don't practically make a career out of bashing MJ while MJ fans seem to think you have to hate Gwen to show their appreciation for their favorite character. Stone made a joke on SNL which was scripted by writers who weren't her and Slott has written MJ in a favorable light which people will conveniently ignore. People are only making a big deal about Slott and Stone's celebrity status to deflect from the fandom's unacceptable behavior.

And here we go again with the absolutes.

Your comment was about Gwen fans "reacting better" to comments like these. Except there hasn't been an instance (at least that I'm aware of) with someone with the reach, status, or influence of Slott or Stone making these types of comments about Gwen (even in jest.) So yeah, maybe one dude on an internet forum calls Gwen a name...that's not going to reach the wider Gwen or Spider-man fandom (and that equivalence ignores the fact that it happens on both sides.)

The behavior of fandoms can be problematic in general. It's unfair to just blame one portion of the fandom. Sorry if you see more of something within the circles you hang around in, but please stop making these kinds of black and white generalizations.

You know what's funny? From what I've seen, most of these types of comments are from fans of comic MJ not necessarily Gwen herself.

As for the harsher language which is directed at Gwen? From calling her a white supremacist, to calling her an annoying nag (kind of like what Raimi MJ was accused of), all manner of misogynistic comments, a certain Gwen basher accusing her of "elder abuse" because of one time she got into an argument with May, various misogynistic comments victim blaming her for her own death, this very thread has someone actually complaining that people like Spider-Gwen etc.

Fabulous. And I've seen people call Raimi MJ all sorts of misogynistic slurs for dating guys that weren't Peter Parker throughout the Raimi trilogy, and calling her ugly or useless in contrast to Emma Stone's Gwen, etc. (and no, those are not "MJ fans".) I've also seen comic book MJ called misogynistic slurs for her party girl behavior throughout the 60s and 70s. People blame her for Harry's drug addiction. People blame her for Gwen's death, and talk about how she should be killed instead. Hell people within the industry and out talk about her misogynistically by reducing her to her good looks.

As far as victim blaming Gwen, accusing her of elder abuse, and calling her a white supremacist (?)... I really don't think that's an "MJ fandom" thing.

There may be one or two versions of MJ that people don't care for but Gwen's mere existence is a point of contention for many people, particularly MJ fans. Go back to page five of this thread and you'll see that this is the comment that started this conversation.

Except those are versions of the character that have by far reached the widest audience.

I think the annoyance stems more from inaccuracies that circulate within the fandom regarding the two characters. I don't see it as much on this board, but in certain circles you can't post any appreciation for MJ without someone chiming in "Gwen is better because..." and then spouting off something that isn't even a matter of opinion...just factually inaccurate. It really swings both ways. But I'll grant you that bringing Gwen into this discussion that way was mostly irrelevant.

[SiegePerilous02]

Maybe I'm being too hard on Peter and Mary jane, but that's what I've always gotten from this relationship. He's never shown as actually plain looking because comics for some reason don't allow normal looking characters. I don't care for the nerdy guy gets the hot girl trope because it always seems to be based on cliches

I don't think Peter...even in the 90s...was ever really intended to be plain looking or unattractive. He's been an attractive guy since at least the Romita era, and not just based on the artwork, but other characters commenting on his appearance. Even in the Ditko era, Gwen says Peter is attractive and "manly looking."

You know the quite, kind of awkward, mousey girls that aren't supposed to be hot but everybody likes anyway? You know, Velman, Irma from Ninja Turtles, thosee types. The type of characters (in the series) might at best say "well, I guess she's kinda cute..." Peter is the male equivalent of those characters.

He's the cute boy-nerd.

I think canon Peter IS meant to be very attractive. Even in the Ditko era he had Liz and Betty fighting over him, and the timing of Romita taking over the art duties actually really works. He was an awkward teenager in the Ditko era, but by Romita he had finished puberty, gained more confidence and put on muscle mass. Going from nerdy to hunky makes sense for Peter and actually justifies all the interest he gets from girls that goes above and beyond how it would go if he was merely nerdy-cute. So MJ has plenty of reasons to be attracted to him, both for his personality, the fact that he's a superhero (which must be an enormous turn on even despite the drawbacks), and his handsome looks. They've never been a mismatched pair looks-wise. I think the cliched "nerd gets the hot girl" stuff comes from the Raimi movies, it's not the dynamic they've ever had before that.

It's why I've felt that, at least looks wise, Garfield is the closest to how Peter should look compared to the other two. None of the three really look like how I imagine Peter would look though, and I've never had any desire to watch Garfield's movies so I don't if acting or writing would mesh with how I feel the character should be. Closest adaptation to perfect is still Spectacular, which worked in Peter's reputation with the girls and he hadn't finished puberty yet.

[CosmiComic]

I think canon Peter IS meant to be very attractive. Even in the Ditko era he had Liz and Betty fighting over him, and the timing of Romita taking over the art duties actually really works. He was an awkward teenager in the Ditko era, but by Romita he had finished puberty, gained more confidence and put on muscle mass. Going from nerdy to hunky makes sense for Peter and actually justifies all the interest he gets from girls that goes above and beyond how it would go if he was merely nerdy-cute. So MJ has plenty of reasons to be attracted to him, both for his personality, the fact that he's a superhero (which must be an enormous turn on even despite the drawbacks), and his handsome looks. They've never been a mismatched pair looks-wise. I think the cliched "nerd gets the hot girl" stuff comes from the Raimi movies, it's not the dynamic they've ever had before that.

It's why I've felt that, at least looks wise, Garfield is the closest to how Peter should look compared to the other two. None of the three really look like how I imagine Peter would look though, and I've never had any desire to watch Garfield's movies so I don't if acting or writing would mesh with how I feel the character should be. Closest adaptation to perfect is still Spectacular, which worked in Peter's reputation with the girls and he hadn't finished puberty yet.

But every hero is a "hunky guy". It would actually be more diverse if he was just normal.

[Frontier]

But every hero is a "hunky guy". It would actually be more diverse if he was just normal.

He can still be good looking and still be relatively normal in my opinion.

[SiegePerilous02]

But every hero is a "hunky guy". It would actually be more diverse if he was just normal.

He can still be good looking and still be relatively normal in my opinion.

Yeah, I feel like he has enough draw backs in his life that him being good looking wouldn't take away from it.

There is also the fact that pre-marriage to MJ, Pete was at times kind of a dog and probably has the longest list of attractive love interests and flings in the Marvel universe. With the most "unattractive" being Deb Whitman, and she was still cute/pretty, just average. And unlike MJ, none of these hot women who pursued him as Peter knew about the Spider-Man side. One does not pull this many attractive women just by being plain/average.

It's why the Raimi movies casting the more conventionally attractive actor as Harry out of the two felt off, when you compare comic book Peter to a Harry that had the misfortune of inhering the hair and looks of his father. Only one step downward, because unlike Norman he's just frail looking lol. Poor bastard.

[CosmiComic]

Yeah, I feel like he has enough draw backs in his life that him being good looking wouldn't take away from it.

There is also the fact that pre-marriage to MJ, Pete was at times kind of a dog and probably has the longest list of attractive love interests and flings in the Marvel universe. With the most "unattractive" being Deb Whitman, and she was still cute/pretty, just average. And unlike MJ, none of these hot women who pursued him as Peter knew about the Spider-Man side. One does not pull this many attractive women just by being plain/average.

It's why the Raimi movies casting the more conventionally attractive actor as Harry out of the two felt off, when you compare comic book Peter to a Harry that had the misfortune of inhering the hair and looks of his father. Only one step downward, because unlike Norman he's just frail looking lol. Poor bastard.

Well, I've never gotten the appeal of Peter just bouncing between love interests.

And what exactly is Norman's and Harry's hairstyles?

[SiegePerilous02]

Well, I've never gotten the appeal of Peter just bouncing between love interests.

And what exactly is Norman's and Harry's hairstyles?

It's not appealing anymore post-marriage, but I think it's an important part of his character arc growing up. Plain nerdy Peter who can't get dates or who is hung up on one girl (like Raimi's) has just never been who he was as a character. So nerdy guy getting the hot girl was never that much of a thing, it kind of seems to be invented as a narrative to undermine his romance to MJ and why it shouldn't work. Because through the 80s and 90s, it was just two hot people. Even in the Ditko days, he was no more unattractive than anybody else, his main issues were being shy/introverted and the attitude he displayed not being appealing to his classmates. Once he opened up in college, it's more believable for Gwen and MJ to be attracted to him.

Harry and Norman have the unfortunate "corn row" hair.