Controversial Spider-Man Opinions

[Spiderfan001]

Superior in terms of what? I don’t think an adaptation making the character likeable automatically makes it superior. There’s more to storytelling than that.



That’s fine. My point is characters are tied to their role in the stories. If you borrow the name and remove all the context you might make a character more likeable but you will do so at the risk of compromising their function, their role, in the story. That’s cool if your changes make something that’s special but if not then it’s likely a waste.



She’s aloof from others around her, puts on a facade to hide how much she cares, she susses out that Peter is Spider-Man before he tells her, and her somewhat jokey attitude is from Defalco’s run on ASM #259 where in her flashback she reveals that she was a class clown in high school. There are issues with the writing and certainly having Ned Leeds/Ganke as Peter’s first bestie is a huge problem but Zendaya’s MJ is closer to her role in the comics than anyone else.



The “real MJ” exists in the comics between 1965-2007 and intermittently after that. I still have my comics. She’s not going anywhere and I have no problems with KD’s Mary Jane or with Zendaya’s MJ.

And i don’t especially think being in the MCU is any special milestone.

As a person, she still has flaws.She's way too headstrong and it costs her.Her getting to the bridge to help peter instead of being kidnapped is a great change as well.

They didn't remove all context.That's what Zendaya's MJ did.

Nope, it's a 180.She puts on a confident party girl facade, she not a loner.She's so different that even the cast said she's not MJ, she Michelle.They specifically said not the same character, it's not MJ again and again.I mean it doesn't get clearer than that.

Yeah, KD's is fine but a huge cheater.MJ doesn't cheat, I don't mind in the first 2 but she should have grown in the third.
Zendaya isn't MJ, the guys who made the movie said so themselves.It's not a unique take on her, it's not her period.

Certainly would benefit her

[TheRay]

well, yes, yes it does. It means part of the story is missing. IE not a good thing.

Yeah, that's an opinion. I'd like to know more about his parents, but it in no way hurts or helps the story, one way or the other.

[marhawkman]

Yeah, that's an opinion. I'd like to know more about his parents, but it in no way hurts or helps the story, one way or the other.

Well it's a part of the setting that... simply doesn't exist in most stories.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Well it's a part of the setting that... simply doesn't exist in most stories.

That’s what I mean when I point out that the Raimi movies are the most cohesive adaptations we have so far. The Garfield movies and the MCU introduced science daddies like Richard and Iron Man and pivoted around them introducing more garish features.

[phonogram12]

Everything about Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies was great except for their depiction of Pete/Spidey (which isn't necessarily MaGuire's fault).

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Everything about Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies was great except for their depiction of Pete/Spidey (which isn't necessarily MaGuire's fault).

Raimi's version of the character was a fair bit passive, yeah.

[Kevinroc]

We're just doomed to mediocre live-action Spider-Man films until who the hell knows when. Maybe the next batch of films will be better. But going by history they won't be.

[phantom1592]

Well it's a part of the setting that... simply doesn't exist in most stories.

I think there's a difference between 'doesn't exist' and 'Isn't important'. They have touched on his parents. It's usually something stupid. They were spies. They were double agents. They were replaced by robots. They created the Venom symbiote... The fact is that they weren't around. They didn't raise Peter. He was too young and Ben and May ARE his parents in any way that actually matters to his character development. Pretty much like Superman's birth parents or Even Batman's parents hardly ever get mentioned... except to point out they die.

My personal opinion... They died and didn't amount to anything is really the perfect backstory for them. Peter is supposed to be the average kid and the everyman hero... so making his parents super scientists and Russian Spies or SHIELD agents REALLY takes away more than it adds. He had parents, They died when he was young... Ben died because he didn't stop a criminal... that fills all the character development we know about how Peter Parker became who he is.

[Spidey_62]

We're just doomed to mediocre live-action Spider-Man films until who the hell knows when. Maybe the next batch of films will be better. But going by history they won't be.

I agree, although I think the only great live-action Spidey movies we've gotten are the first two Raimi movies. Those were made in a different era where superhero movies weren't the sure-thing they are now so it wasn't focused on franchise building or pleasing fans at the behest of coherent story, or trying to copy the tone of other movies. The MCU has long lost its luster for me, it's all still perfectly enjoyable but rarely rises above. I feel like the general state of blockbuster movies has become really samey with the MCU's dominance, I don't even love much of what the Distinguished Competition does but I appreciate they're at least not trying to also do the MCU's franchise building schtick anymore.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

We're just doomed to mediocre live-action Spider-Man films until who the hell knows when. Maybe the next batch of films will be better. But going by history they won't be.

I was reading Comics Creators on X-Men and there's a great interview with Alan Davis where he says:

"In general, I'm always puzzled why a movie version is seen as an achievement for a comic, when movies always so superficial; ninety-minute adverts for merchandise. I love comics as a medium and although CGI can be very impressive, in my opinion, film has never captured the true essence of comics."
(Alan Davis, Comics Creators on X-Men, Page 132)

I agree with that. I don't think it's necessary to long for and pine after a movie that brings out the aspects in comics one fan or another cherishes.

[Jman27]

I was reading Comics Creators on X-Men and there's a great interview with Alan Davis where he says:

"In general, I'm always puzzled why a movie version is seen as an achievement for a comic, when movies always so superficial; ninety-minute adverts for merchandise. I love comics as a medium and although CGI can be very impressive, in my opinion, film has never captured the true essence of comics."
(Alan Davis, Comics Creators on X-Men, Page 132)

I agree with that. I don't think it's necessary to long for and pine after a movie that brings out the aspects in comics one fan or another cherishes.

people just want a one to one copy of a comic. comic fans are lucky they most movies are successful anime fans dont have that luxury when it comes to live action. I never understand why we harp so hard on these adaptations when thats what they are adaptations. Some wont hit the mark others will you still going to buy that comic character you like.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

people just want a one to one copy of a comic. comic fans are lucky they most movies are successful anime fans dont have that luxury when it comes to live action. I never understand why we harp so hard on these adaptations when thats what they are adaptations. Some wont hit the mark others will you still going to buy that comic character you like.

The issue is that adaptations aren't just adaptations. People use a movie adaptation as an excuse or a cudgel to herd the comics a certain way all in an attempt to convert the moviegoing audience to comics readers, none of which ever works. What sells comics is comics' storytelling. I actually wrote a whole series of posts about this on my website if you have the time.

[PanicPixieDreamGirl]

Peter's landlord's daughter Ursula is the best non-comics character in any Spider-Man film (a small group, I know.)

[Agent Z]

I was reading Comics Creators on X-Men and there's a great interview with Alan Davis where he says:

"In general, I'm always puzzled why a movie version is seen as an achievement for a comic, when movies always so superficial; ninety-minute adverts for merchandise. I love comics as a medium and although CGI can be very impressive, in my opinion, film has never captured the true essence of comics."
(Alan Davis, Comics Creators on X-Men, Page 132)

I agree with that. I don't think it's necessary to long for and pine after a movie that brings out the aspects in comics one fan or another cherishes.

Davis calling movies superficial is pretty rich given what superhero comics get accusedof being.

[Starrius]

Peter/Mary Jane is the my all time favorite comic book couple, but I didn't like them in the Raimi movies.
I didn't like that Mary Jane was Peter's childhood crush and his primary love interest in those movies.
I would have preferred that the movies had 1. Betty, 2. Gwen, and 3. Mary Jane as Peter's love interests.


I didn't like Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane. I didn't like that she kissed Spider-Man on the lips without knowing his secret identity while she's dating Harry. I didn't like that she left her fiancee John Jameson at the altar to be with Peter.
I thought she was too mean to Peter in Spider-Man 3.
I didn't think she had good chemistry with Tobey Maguire as Peter.
Why not cast Bryce Dallas Howard as Mary Jane and Kirsten Dunst as Gwen?

I liked Emma Stone as Gwen. She came off really nice, caring, and supportive. She definitely wasn't like the Gwen that died hating Spider-Man and not knowing that he's Peter.

Even though I like movies Peter/Gwen more than movies Peter/Mary Jane, I am way too much of Peter/Mary Jane fan to convert to being Peter/Gwen as the result of the movies.


Some of my favorite stuff in regards to their marriage in the comics is in the 2nd Clone Saga. The one that stands out to me is when Mary Jane risked her life from getting killed by Peter while helping him break Jackal's programming. I also like that her love for him never wavered and she never gave up on him even when he was the clone. She loved him no matter what.


I think Betty has been too overlooked as Peter's first girlfriend that he loved. I liked Betty in the Sam Raimi movies, and I wouldn't have mind him hooking up with her first before Mary Jane.