Thread Drift: Was Casting Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy rather than MJ a mistake?

[Kevinroc]

so…following your train of thought-is it a mistake to have gwen or involve emma stone as gwen? it seems the mistake was killing her.

I notice you aren't answering the question of the thread. I've already discussed this over the thread. You don't need me to reiterate my perspective when it's all over this thread.

[boots]

I notice you aren't answering the question of the thread. I've already discussed this over the thread. You don't need me to reiterate my perspective when it's all over this thread.

you’ll possibly also notice i was asking for clarification ( i’ve found most of the explanation supplied so far impossible to understand) and not necessarily from you. sorry to ruin your thread and your day.

anyone else want to bat?

[Spider-Tiger]

so…following your train of thought-is it a mistake to have gwen or involve emma stone as gwen? it seems the mistake was killing her.

Boiled down--the mistake was killing Emma Stone (or rather casting Emma Stone as “the girlfriend that dies”). This could have been avoided by not killing Gwen Stacy (but they built the new franchise around the character's death--they took that single moment and worked backwards. It’s why they used Gwen so prominently) or simply casting Emma Stone as Mary Jane (who was slated to take over once Gwen Stacy perished.)

Emma Stone aside, there were numerous missteps with the amazing franchise that led to its downfall. For one, using the Gwen Stacy storyline to build a Spider-man cinematic universe probably wasn't the wisest decision.

[Osvjietnik]

Had the franchise kept going (aka, had Amazing Spider-Man 3 happened) they would have had a major issue moving forward when it comes to future love interests.

The chemistry between Garfield and Stone was just too great for the movies own good. Had they kept the plan of bringing in Shailene Woodly (Divergent, Fault in our Stars), there is no way she would have been able to outshine Stone.

But all of this is mute at this point. Spider-Man will be back in high school again (something I think will be a good thing for the series going forward) and we most likely won't get an MJ or Gwen for awhile. I hope he has a job as an IT guy or something at the Bugle and has a thing with Betty Brant at first (kind of a meld between 616 and Ultimate versions of the character.)

[boots]

This could have been avoided by not killing Gwen Stacy (but they built the new franchise around the character's death--they took that single moment and worked backwards.

that’s interesting. is this something that writers or director have stated? i’d love to read that.

even if that’s the case, it’s not necessarily a mistake to work that way (in fact, having a defined ending to a story arc is probably the best way). making the call to end her thread in the second instalment might be premature but foreshadowing up to at least the third film (my personal preference is for trilogies) might have been a better move… though it’s a heavy cinematic bookend.

[Spider-Tiger]

Had the franchise kept going (aka, had Amazing Spider-Man 3 happened) they would have had a major issue moving forward when it comes to future love interests.

The chemistry between Garfield and Stone was just too great for the movies own good. Had they kept the plan of bringing in Shailene Woodly (Divergent, Fault in our Stars), there is no way she would have been able to outshine Stone.

But all of this is mute at this point. Spider-Man will be back in high school again (something I think will be a good thing for the series going forward) and we most likely won't get an MJ or Gwen for awhile. I hope he has a job as an IT guy or something at the Bugle and has a thing with Betty Brant at first (kind of a meld between 616 and Ultimate versions of the character.)

I'm not so sure about that. We know that Fiege and Sony want to really exploit the high school setting and give the films a John Hughes vibe. I have a feeling that we'll be seeing a much larger supporting cast than in previous Spider-man films with most of the major supporting characters appearing in Peter's high school ala Ultimate.

[Scott Taylor]

Well, I think Kevin's point here is that Emma Stone completely stole every scene she was in to the point that she stole the franchise. She was the best actor in those two movies. So good that when she was killed, so was the franchise. That is the mistake they made in casting Emma Stone. Cast another relative unknown like Andrew Garfield in that role, and we might be looking at an ASM3 still happening.

[boots]

Well, I think Kevin's point here is that Emma Stone completely stole every scene she was in to the point that she stole the franchise. She was the best actor in those two movies. So good that when she was killed, so was the franchise. That is the mistake they made in casting Emma Stone. Cast another relative unknown like Andrew Garfield in that role, and we might be looking at an ASM3 still happening.

that’s so bass ackwards

[Spider-Tiger]

that’s interesting. is this something that writers or director have stated? i’d love to read that.

even if that’s the case, it’s not necessarily a mistake to work that way (in fact, having a defined ending to a story arc is probably the best way). making the call to end her thread in the second instalment might be premature but foreshadowing up to at least the third film (my personal preference is for trilogies) might have been a better move… though it’s a heavy cinematic bookend.

Webb has stated this in interviews:

When did you guys decide that you were 100 percent going to kill off Gwen Stacy?

From the beginning of the first movie.

http://screencrush.com/amazing-spider-man-2-ending/

Webb understands. He felt much the same way when Gwen Stacy was killed off in the comic. “It stayed with me in a profound way. It broke me. I was anxious and curious to explore it on the screen. From the very beginning I planned on doing it,” he says. “For me, everything in the movie was built around that moment. There’s a cost to being a hero.”

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/05/08...ebb-gwen-stacy

Perhaps it was more of an issue in execution (no pun intended). Still I think it was a mistake to cast Stone as a character that gets killed off, if franchise longevity was the goal.

[boots]

cheers for the links, mate. i found the director’s theme of time really nice.

and i can generally agree that if the intent is to have a franchise run indefinitely, then killing off one of the major (perhaps the only?) drawcards early on is a mistake. as the director himself said- their relationship is the “heart”, so removing that too soon stops everything else.

Still I think it was a mistake to cast Stone as a character that gets killed off, if franchise longevity was the goal.

i still feel that way of putting it a bit bass ackwards. as someone who has been heavily involved in casting on both sides of the camera, it’s rare that you don’t want to cast the most charismatic person- no matter the role- often especially if the character is slated to die. the aim is for audience investment. specificity is important when identifying a problem.

i’d definitely lean on execution of timing rather than character being the issue here (GoT gets away with it on a regular basis).

[Scott Taylor]

i still feel that way of putting it a bit bass ackwards. as someone who has been heavily involved in casting on both sides of the camera, it’s rare that you don’t want to cast the most charismatic person- no matter the role- often especially if the character is slated to die. the aim is for audience investment. specificity is important when identifying a problem.

i’d definitely lean on execution of timing rather than character being the issue here (GoT gets away with it on a regular basis).

As a director, you want people to be invested in the person who dies tragically. And it has to be meaningful to the hero of your film. ASM2 accomplished both of those things. On paper it should have worked. But that can be said for alot of things on paper!

[Kevinroc]

cheers for the links, mate. i found the director’s theme of time really nice.

and i can generally agree that if the intent is to have a franchise run indefinitely, then killing off one of the major (perhaps the only?) drawcards early on is a mistake. as the director himself said- their relationship is the “heart”, so removing that too soon stops everything else.

I totally get the idea of trying to build up a character and a relationship so the audience is invested, and break their hearts.

But... they had built nothing else up in Peter's world. (Except that stupid parents subplot.) They took out Flash Thompson. They cut out MJ. The Daily Bugle was just name dropped. There was nothing else to care about.

i still feel that way of putting it a bit bass ackwards. as someone who has been heavily involved in casting on both sides of the camera, it’s rare that you don’t want to cast the most charismatic person- no matter the role- often especially if the character is slated to die. the aim is for audience investment. specificity is important when identifying a problem.

i’d definitely lean on execution of timing rather than character being the issue here (GoT gets away with it on a regular basis).

It's all a case of priorities. Those movies prioritized doing TNGSD, but didn't understand that other characters were impacted by Gwen's death. And how that impacted their interaction with Peter.

If they planned to bring MJ into ASM 3, it would have been an MJ that never knew Gwen. Unless they half-assed it as they did Harry's appearance in ASM 2 after never once mentioning him in ASM 1.

[boots]

As a director, you want people to be invested in the person who dies tragically. And it has to be meaningful to the hero of your film. ASM2 accomplished both of those things. On paper it should have worked. But that can be said for alot of things on paper!

very true, that’s often the between a success and a misfire.

and in film, it’s very rare that it’s one person’s fault.

[boots]

But... they had built nothing else up in Peter's world. (Except that stupid parents subplot.) They took out Flash Thompson. They cut out MJ. The Daily Bugle was just name dropped. There was nothing else to care about.

great point. that to me seems to be (one of) the mistake/s.

gwen isn’t the issue. emma isn’t the issue. killing her isn’t the issue. it’s everything else that is meant to support the plot point (both in universe and out) and failed to.

[Mister Mets]

I think we have to look at the rest of the movies for context as to why I think casting Stone as Gwen was a mistake. Sure, casting Stone as MJ wouldn't have saved those movies from the terrible parents subplot. But it would have kept up interest as they moved into ASM 3.

See, for all the "world building" they were trying to do to turn ASM into a mega franchise to compete with the MCU, they didn't build up Peter's world. In fact, they reduced Peter's world going into ASM 2 with Flash Thompson's disappearance. And cutting out the scenes with Shailene Woodley as MJ. And keeping the Bugle entirely off screen. And the mess that was the Harry Osborn story. (He was supposed to be Peter's BFF? Didn't even get mentioned at all in the first movie.)

See, I agree it's a "good problem" to have the audience care about the characters and what happens to them. It's a "bad problem" when that's the ONLY thing they care about when they plan on killing off the character. And in these movies, Gwen ended up being a BAD PROBLEM. (Capitalized for emphasis.)



As has been said, the romance angle wasn't a major selling point of those franchises. Romance has been a major selling point of the Spider-Man films since the first Raimi film.



MJ's dad being a complete jerk is pretty much a constant through the Marvel multiverse. What he actually does as a job? That one's up in the air.

(But I always love it when Jonah rallies the public against Spider-Man.)

There have been plenty of romances with doomed beautiful young people.

The Fault In Our Stars made a lot of money. Ghost and Titanic were two of the biggest films in the 90s.

Well, I think Kevin's point here is that Emma Stone completely stole every scene she was in to the point that she stole the franchise. She was the best actor in those two movies. So good that when she was killed, so was the franchise. That is the mistake they made in casting Emma Stone. Cast another relative unknown like Andrew Garfield in that role, and we might be looking at an ASM3 still happening.

I don't think the films would have been more successful with a less impressive actress in the role. That is rarely the case.