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

[Spider-Tiger]

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 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).

No problem. I see where you are coming from. Again, in my opinion, there were several problems that crippled the Amazing franchise, and timing was certainly an issue. However, audience investment was also an issue. Audiences were too invested in a character that died and not enough in other elements/characters. Otherwise, the franchise might have been able to press on without Gwen, and they wouldn't have had to come up with (contrived) ways to bring Emma Stone back.

[Spider-Tiger]

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.

Except those are all standalone films. Not ongoing world-building franchises.

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

To be fair, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Emma Stone should have been cut out entirely. Just that she should have been cast in a role that kept her around indefinitely to sustain interest in the franchise and really take advantage of her talent.

[Kevinroc]

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.

Do you think we would have seen an ASM 3 if they had decided not to use Gwen and instead had cast Stone as MJ?

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.

The Fault In Our Stars' success is relative to its low budget. A Spider-Man film that earned $300+ million would be seen as a total failure.

But the larger point... That a doomed romance doesn't necessarily mean a film can't succeed, is the real heart of this issue. And there might be something to that, if they hadn't decided to build up on the parents storyline that was so unpopular that even people at Sony hated it. Instead of building up on stuff like the Daily Bugle, Flash Thompson, or MJ moving into the neighborhood, we got a continuation of a plot point that was incredibly unpopular in the first place. They badly prioritized their film and paid the price for that.

[boots]

Do you think we would have seen an ASM 3 if they had decided not to use Gwen and instead had cast Stone as MJ?

lets put it this way: “uneven narrative”, “too many characters”, “middle-of-trilogy-lag” “running time” are all reasons cited amongst critics and the general public. “gwen instead of mj” is fan logic i’ve only seen here.

[Daniel22]

Well we had that animated Spider-Man TV series with the great theme! And there was a live action Spider-Man TV show that I try to forget about.

I love this age of seeing all these beloved characters on screen. But at the same time, Superman is permanently emblazoned on my soul as the movie to beat still. Nothing has topped that time when Clark Kent is running towards the camera ripping his shirt off, to the music of John Williams, revealing the big 'S' underneath. I had no idea that the first superhero movie that I truly loved would be so hard to ever match. Wonder Woman of the 1970s is still my Wonder Woman. That Greatest American Hero TV show is better than the Daredevil movie!

My point is that even though I am grateful to be living in this time, its increasingly apparent that just because these movies are a thing now it doesn't mean that they are done with heart. I felt the ASM movies were done with no goal other than to keep the license for Sony and to make money. Period. No heart. People involved with the movie made noises as if they cared for these characters in the franchise, but I felt that they really didn't. Felt completely different with Raimi, who cared so much about the character and his world that he cast himself as a gopher in the Daily Bugle! Thats heart, buddy! Dan Slott cares enough about the character that he has written him for ... I forget how long now, and he was in a recent issue (don't lie, Dan, that is you!). Heart.

Emma Stone isn't only a good actor, she's also good at being a tough cookie. The girl in Zombieland who kept stealing those guys car, and holding her own again zombie hordes? Over and over she has played streetwise roles. She's also a model - the face of Revlon. And she is known for being a redhead. In cultural consciousness, she is not Gwen Stacy, she is MJ. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the comics would see that.

Long story short - the 'Gwen' of the ASM movies was built into a tough character who probably would have found a way to live through that stupid goblin attack. Yet she died in kind of a putzy way.

Is there a bit of rose-colored-glasses-ism creeping in, though? I totally get that we love and romanticize the things we grew up with (It's something I bring up here, on occasion).
I still would say that the "heart" factor is probably the same in the Reeves/Carter/West era as it is in the Cavil/Garfield/Downey era, it's just our perceptions and bias that make us feel otherwise. It's like when people talk about how today's comic creators aren't "in it for the love" like back in the day, as though Kirby and Lee didn't get paychecks and crank out the work of four men each. I would say that the creators of the original Superman movies probably looked at them the same way that the creators of the Man of Steel did: as a job, an opportunity to make a financially successful movie with a recognizable property.

I do think there is something to the argument that the CGI does a lot of the work today. Creators of the past had to, out of necessity, have a lot of human drama and low-stakes issues, because they couldn't really pay off the Super-side of the characters. The best we got was Ferigno throwing a dude into some cardboard boxes or Carter doing a slow-motion Judo 101 move. Now that they can show literally anything they can imagine, in fantastic looking CGI, maybe they feel that we expect everything to be Big and Flashy. I sometimes feel that a bit of the ol' Hitchcock, less-is-more, what they don't see WILL hurt them mojo would go a long way in some of these movies.

[Daniel22]

lets put it this way: “uneven narrative”, “too many characters”, “middle-of-trilogy-lag” “running time” are all reasons cited amongst critics and the general public. “gwen instead of mj” is fan logic i’ve only seen here.

Yeah, for sure. If anything, the general public response to me has seemed to say "Thank god for Stone, she was a lifesaver". I remain unconvinced that any significant percentage of moviegoers even knew who Gwen was, going into the movie. I think we can very safely say that most moviegoers only knew MJ from the original trilogy, and so had no real investment in her. It's not a case of moviegoers caring about "Gwen or MJ", it's more a case of them saying "Who is Gwen?" and "MJ was the redhead, right?".

[Kevinroc]

lets put it this way: “uneven narrative”, “too many characters”, “middle-of-trilogy-lag” “running time” are all reasons cited amongst critics and the general public. “gwen instead of mj” is fan logic i’ve only seen here.

Let me put it like this. They only used Gwen because they wanted to kill her.

Would the franchise have gone down if they had used MJ instead?

[boots]

Let me put it like this. They only used Gwen because they wanted to kill her.

Would the franchise have gone down if they had used MJ instead?

take another look at the actual reasons cited for the failure of the film and make up your own mind.

[boots]

Yeah, for sure. If anything, the general public response to me has seemed to say "Thank god for Stone, she was a lifesaver". I remain unconvinced that any significant percentage of moviegoers even knew who Gwen was, going into the movie. I think we can very safely say that most moviegoers only knew MJ from the original trilogy, and so had no real investment in her. It's not a case of moviegoers caring about "Gwen or MJ", it's more a case of them saying "Who is Gwen?" and "MJ was the redhead, right?".

yeah, i don’t think that can be argued.

i believe kevinroc and some others belief is that emma’s premature exit killed the franchise. i could somewhat see that if we got to instalment 3 and it tanked due to the lack of her star presence, but the series was already under-performing with her in it. she was in 2 and whether she played gwen, mj, betty brant or aunt may in that film would likely not have compensated for the (accusations) of mishandling of the basics of story telling.

[Kevinroc]

take another look at the actual reasons cited for the failure of the film and make up your own mind.

All of those elements are absolutely true. Absolutely. We also know that sometimes those elements don't stop a movie from being successful. Is it wrong to wonder if maybe they did screw up with the romance angle of these films?

[Scott Taylor]

Is there a bit of rose-colored-glasses-ism creeping in, though? I totally get that we love and romanticize the things we grew up with (It's something I bring up here, on occasion).
I still would say that the "heart" factor is probably the same in the Reeves/Carter/West era as it is in the Cavil/Garfield/Downey era, it's just our perceptions and bias that make us feel otherwise. It's like when people talk about how today's comic creators aren't "in it for the love" like back in the day, as though Kirby and Lee didn't get paychecks and crank out the work of four men each. I would say that the creators of the original Superman movies probably looked at them the same way that the creators of the Man of Steel did: as a job, an opportunity to make a financially successful movie with a recognizable property.

I do think there is something to the argument that the CGI does a lot of the work today. Creators of the past had to, out of necessity, have a lot of human drama and low-stakes issues, because they couldn't really pay off the Super-side of the characters. The best we got was Ferigno throwing a dude into some cardboard boxes or Carter doing a slow-motion Judo 101 move. Now that they can show literally anything they can imagine, in fantastic looking CGI, maybe they feel that we expect everything to be Big and Flashy. I sometimes feel that a bit of the ol' Hitchcock, less-is-more, what they don't see WILL hurt them mojo would go a long way in some of these movies.

The fact that better methods for special effects may be hurting things, its true. Take a movie like Jaws where they had to use that mechanical shark as little as possible because it kept malfunctioning. That led to a scary shark that existing on screen a relative little amount of time. Do we get that brilliant scene on the boat with the three men talking about their shark experiences if we have CGI sharks? The phenomenon continues today, where some very low budget films can surprise us with their character depth. When that happens was it intentional or just necessary?

Oh I don't think the creators of Superman had any idea what kind of legendary status those first two movies would achieve. Or Star Wars. But the difference between then and now is that those movies were more or less experiemental at the time and barely got made. Now these movies are expected to do well and meet certain goals. Hollywood is a tougher environment for experimentation, due to bigger and bigger stakes.

[boots]

All of those elements are absolutely true. Absolutely. We also know that sometimes those elements don't stop a movie from being successful. Is it wrong to wonder if maybe they did screw up with the romance angle of these films?

not wrong. speculation is an important product of imagination, but speculation by definition is based on little to no evidence. it’s dangerous to make million dollar decisions that way (hello wall street). by all evidence, the romance angle was perfect.

the elements we’re now discussing are specific critiques applied to this particular film almost universally by audiences and media- they aren’t speculative they are reactions to the material. i haven’t found one shred of evidence that emma stone’s removal stopped people from buying tickets to this particular film (and i’ve looked. believe it or not, i’m open to all ideas at first, until it proves itself false).

[Scott Taylor]

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

Not less impressive, but less known. Emma Stone was a big star and a fair number of people probably went in their specifically for her. She's the Hugh Jackman of the ASM franchise!

[boots]

Oh I don't think the creators of Superman had any idea what kind of legendary status those first two movies would achieve. Or Star Wars. But the difference between then and now is that those movies were more or less experiemental at the time and barely got made. Now these movies are expected to do well and meet certain goals. Hollywood is a tougher environment for experimentation, due to bigger and bigger stakes.

and becoming more risk adverse. a risk on original material can give you “the matrix” or “jupiter ascending”. budgets are bigger than ever but returns (in cinema) aren’t. it’s why everyone emulates an original idea rather than come up with their own original idea- because being “original” is so nebulous.

then you have the reverse of what you’re talking about; the “fast and the furious” franchise. the less street level, the dumber and flashier it got- the more it has made.

[Confuzzled]

and becoming more risk adverse. a risk on original material can give you “the matrix” or “jupiter ascending”. budgets are bigger than ever but returns (in cinema) aren’t. it’s why everyone emulates an original idea rather than come up with their own original idea- because being “original” is so nebulous.

then you have the reverse of what you’re talking about; the “fast and the furious” franchise. the less street level, the dumber and flashier it got- the more it has made.

Eh, Fast and Furious also caters to demographics who are highly underserved in blockbuster films and Hollywood movies in general. That also plays a big part in its breakout success, as was the case with the Twilight films when they were running, the numerous subpar romantic comedies that preceded those films and now with 50 Shades of Grey. Actual quality of content matters less for starved demographics when they finally get something they can relate to and latch onto. It's only when Hollywood consistently starts putting out quality content featuring characters of under-represented demographics when collective tastes will begin to get refined as well.