I’d argue this particular scene wouldn’t be seen as nearly as particularly problematic a lot of successful and accepted romance arcs - partially because a scene like this, with a quick, seemingly impulsive kiss, her embracing him mid kiss, and then them realizing he screwed up could be “acceptably problematic” as an example of where two three dimensional characters can make a mistake that *could* be toxic in some circumstances, but non-toxic in others.
Yes, Debra Whitman and MJ getting thrown aside while pregnant are much more outright problematic and caused consternation even back then in a more toxic time, but this? It could be bad, but it doesn't have to be of the creator is empathetic and smart.
Think Han and Leia’s first kiss in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back - usually now recognized as having a lot of problematic elements present... but generally agreed to still toe the line enough with regards to Leia’s agency and psychology that it avoids aging too badly.
And anyways, heaven knows there’s been a lot more problematic stuff that people have accepted in modern times that “should” have gotten certain films or stories “cancelled” but that pop culture influencers will fight over labeling in a negative way thanks to aftershocks it might have...
Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?
I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP
I think that the kiss in Spider-man vs Wolverine is made more acceptable by the art: while the narration and dialogue imply that MJ is unwilling, the art implies that she is. It's still a problematic sequence to have written. (I note that Christopher Priest was against the Peter/MJ relationship - I don't think it was the last time people who didn't want to write Peter and MJ together wrote something problematic.)
Petrus Maria Johannaque sunt nubendi
It's definitely the art that executes the "non-toxic" interpretation, a bit like how Ford and Fisher's acting carries their ESB kiss; now, its conceivable the writing was done with the intention for the art or acting to allay things and make the work non-toxic, which wouldn't necessarily prevent the relationship from being toxic as an intentional writing choice.
Which leads us to the interesting conundrum that Priest might have found himself in, or at least a way the writing could be viewed as a hypothetical problem for good character writers who still may not like the relationship, as opposed to mediocre or bad character writers who maybe depend more on external conflicts:
- Let's say a good writer, like Priest, decides that maybe the best way to use the Peter and MJ relationship is to try and intentionally portray the relationship as toxic in-universe - to try and turn the audience against it by making it clear these two characters are unhealthy for each other within the context of the story. If they can pull it off, it's far and away the smarter way to deconstruct the relationship, potentially turn people against it, and still derive entertainment material from it.
- The catch for a good character writer like Priest? He respects the work of previous writers too much and has too much professional skill to make a hack job of writing Peter and MJ - which means that he's going to write them consistent with prior characterization, nuance, and subtlety...
- ...which means that his story attempting to make MJ and Peter toxic is going to be limited in toxicity (since neither character's established personality is too toxic) and reliant on the idea that their fatal flaws in the relationship are static character flaws... so the next pro-relationship writer just has to make them dynamic characters, and suddenly Priest's hard work to sabotage the relationship just becomes a conflict they triumphantly overcame in a grand, well-written larger story.
Meanwhile, of course, the hacks who just cut to the point and try to write characters badly just get their stories "disqualified" because of the poor quality of their work.
Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?
I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP
So I saw this in Reddit and thought it be fun to do here. Let’s say we had 616 MJ, 1610 MJ, MC2 MJ, Imsonmiac MJ, Renew your Vows MJ and 6160 MJ all in the same room. How would the conversation go?
Per my Discord group:
mjmeetmj.jpg
Join the "Spider-Fam" Community! - Celebrating Love and Advocating for Our Hero to Beat the Devil! - https://discord.gg/VQ2mHzBBFu
Assuming that 616 MJ is in character...
as soon as the penny drops that 6160 Peter hasn't been Spider-man for very long, everybody quizzes 6160 MJ about what life is like without Spider-man around. Meanwhile, if 6160 MJ doesn't know already she cottons on to why her Peter is acting oddly lately.
RYV MJ has met May and can talk to MC2 MJ about that. MC2 MJ and RYV MJ compare notes on how May went missing and came back. (About time, really.) I have no idea what 616 MJ makes of that given the entirely ambiguous situation with the baby in 616.
616 MJ would like to know what happened to everyone else's acting career. Insomniac MJ and 1610 MJ talk about being a reporter. 6160, RYV, and MC2 share anecdotes about work.
Eventually somebody - probably MC2 MJ - forgets 1610 MJ is only a teenager and brings up Peter's stamina and flexibility. 1610 MJ is embarrassed (but makes notes to self).
Petrus Maria Johannaque sunt nubendi
To be fair, so did MJ.
(ASM#286)
An entire room of MJs written by Zeb Wells is an evil I didn't wanna imagine, so thanks for that...
And RYV MJ would mention his third leg.
(RYV#13)
I bet that'd make her even more Petersexual than before.1610 MJ is embarrassed (but makes notes to self).