Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 112
  1. #1
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    670

    Default Thread Drift: How famous is Mary Jane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash Gordon View Post
    I'm in my twenties and most of my friends are married. Youth has nothing to do with it.

    Though I think in order for Peter to be an underdog, he can't really have the red head supermodel.
    Good thing MJ wasn't a supermodel for all that long, then.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertMacQuarrie1 View Post
    Good thing MJ wasn't a supermodel for all that long, then.
    It doesn't really matter. It's still something that would define the character in-universe.

  3. #3
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It doesn't really matter. It's still something that would define the character in-universe.
    Except it's been continually buried and avoided as a topic in universe. The only people who keep bringing it up are those who look to find some reason to break Peter and MJ up. The comic has not had that as a feature of her character for over a decade now.

  4. #4
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertMacQuarrie1 View Post
    Except it's been continually buried and avoided as a topic in universe. The only people who keep bringing it up are those who look to find some reason to break Peter and MJ up. The comic has not had that as a feature of her character for over a decade now.
    I find that curious, since its brought up a lot when it comes to discussion MJ's appearances in other media, particular in live action. People always bring up that MJ should look like a super hot supermodel; the reactions against Shailene Woodley as MJ was quite the spectacle wasn't it ?. Like cosplaying MJ is often rated on the attractiveness of the person and the size of their "assets".

  5. #5
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pako View Post
    I find that curious, since its brought up a lot when it comes to discussion MJ's appearances in other media, particular in live action. People always bring up that MJ should look like a super hot supermodel; the reactions against Shailene Woodley as MJ was quite the spectacle wasn't it ?. Like cosplaying MJ is often rated on the attractiveness of the person and the size of their "assets".
    And those people are usually the same ones who insist that Peter shouldn't be with MJ because she's a supermodel.

  6. #6
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertMacQuarrie1 View Post
    This is not inherently not a negative. I have yet to see anyone explain how this is supposed to be a bad thing. They simply seem to point out that they can't, as if that is in and of itself a detriment.
    My reasoning? He'll never stop being Spider-Man. I don't think it's entirely fair to a character who as Peter's spouse is pretty much going to be the person that worries about him all the time. She'll root for him, but there's gonna be stories where she worries also. And she can ask him nicely to let things go, but he won't ever do that. So there she is, pretty much powerless to Peter's life.


    Then if you don't care, then why put so much emphasis on maintaining that status quo?
    I have my reasons for not being comfortable with a marriage that one of them can't really ever leave.

    If the marriage got reinstated tomorrow, I might still read the title, though. Just wouldn't be entirely comfortable. I'd say it's my one "thing".

    Again, how is this a bad thing? There are plenty of things that "trap" Peter so to speak, but are allowed. Why so much emphasis on whether or not he can break up with someone, when you freely admit it is not something you take seriously?
    It's a concern of mine. Just because I don't take it completely serious to the Nth Degree doesn't mean something can't bother me. I can go to a movie and be entertained, like I'd hoped to be, but maybe a fleeting scene came across as racist and it just nags at me. I'm not freaking out about it at the end of the day. I'm not boycotting anyone, or shaking my internet fist at whomever is in charge.

  7. #7
    A Gentle Woman Mia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Corner Office
    Posts
    1,507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertMacQuarrie1 View Post
    Good thing MJ wasn't a supermodel for all that long, then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It doesn't really matter. It's still something that would define the character in-universe.
    Believe it or not there are super-models who date ordinary guys. I remember some years back reading an interview with Tyra Banks when she was one of the top models in Victoria's Secrets. And she said she actually dated a guy who didn't even have a job. A shallow or superficial woman might only be interested in a man with money or celebrity status. But a woman with depth won't. Because no matter how rich the guy is, if he's a jerk, has no character or they don't connect. There will be no interest in maintaining the relationship. Mary Jane (while I was reading her) never struck me as a shallow woman and after her experience with her dad, I don't think she would be the type of woman to settle for just a guy with power, wealth or celebrity in and of itself.
    • “No flash to her, just sheer content that resonates with much of human experience. A real archetype of suffering, getting wise to life’s harshness, surviving and taking care of all that matters. That’s the beauty of [Sansa’s character arc. And why she appeals & inspires so many different people. She mirrors what is going on in their own lives].”- Susan Bertolino
    • How you make others feel about themselves says a lot about you.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia View Post
    Believe it or not there are super-models who date ordinary guys. I remember some years back reading an interview with Tyra Banks when she was one of the top models in Victoria's Secrets. And she said she actually dated a guy who didn't even have a job. A shallow or superficial woman might only be interested in a man with money or celebrity status. But a woman with depth won't. Because no matter how rich the guy is, if he's a jerk, has no character or they don't connect. There will be no interest in maintaining the relationship. Mary Jane (while I was reading her) never struck me as a shallow woman and after her experience with her dad, I don't think she would be the type of woman to settle for just a guy with power, wealth or celebrity in and of itself.
    It's not about whether MJ would be interested in Peter, but about what it means for Peter to be dating someone that well-known.

    If we were following a series about the guy who dated Tyra Banks, that would likely be one of the things that defined him.

  9. #9
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia View Post
    Believe it or not there are super-models who date ordinary guys. I remember some years back reading an interview with Tyra Banks when she was one of the top models in Victoria's Secrets. And she said she actually dated a guy who didn't even have a job. A shallow or superficial woman might only be interested in a man with money or celebrity status. But a woman with depth won't. Because no matter how rich the guy is, if he's a jerk, has no character or they don't connect. There will be no interest in maintaining the relationship. Mary Jane (while I was reading her) never struck me as a shallow woman and after her experience with her dad, I don't think she would be the type of woman to settle for just a guy with power, wealth or celebrity in and of itself.
    The problem I have with the "Peter married a Supermodel" argument is that Peter didn't marry a Supermodel.

    The way the argument is phrased, people make it seem like MJ was introduced as a Supermodel. As if she was always this Cindy Crawford level of super-famous celebrity. That he married her when she was on top of the world. And she was always a Supermodel, throughout their entire marriage, or their entire relationship.

    That's just not true. Peter met MJ when she was still a struggling actress. One of her first jobs was dancing in a club and taking pictures of people. Not exactly high class work. And she was still struggling when they were dating, and when they got married. She only became a supermodel when an insane fan of hers pumped up her career under the auspices of seducing her, and when she rejected him he ruined her career. She couldn't get work as a supermodel anymore, or as a model. It eventually led to MJ and Peter losing their apartment, and having to move in with Aunt May for a spell. And when MJ did find work, it was eventually on a soap opera. Not exactly the place where you find superstars or high level celebrities.

    True, MJ did get back into the modeling game a little bit later. And she was famous again for a while. Again, for a while. Then she "died," and when she came back she was never that same level of famous. The books never depicted her as being on top of the world. She was depicted as someone who wanted to act and didn't want to be judged on her looks alone, which actually limited her roles. And even in the books since BND, she's been the host of a reality show, and now the owner of a bar. Not exactly high class professions.

    So the argument that "Peter married a supermodel" is false. It's an oversimplification of her role in the series, and an obsession with one part of her life, solely done so people can have some form of moral justification over undoing the relationship that they don't prefer over one that they do. I don't see any need to indulge that type of argument, since it's not one that is based on what actually happened in the books, but an inflated talking point to demonize a situation that the book actually dealt with and moved past over two decades ago.

  10. #10
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It's not about whether MJ would be interested in Peter, but about what it means for Peter to be dating someone that well-known.
    Then it shouldn't be a issue, because the book never made MJ into that well known for that long.

    It was dealt with over twenty years ago. No one is obsessing over this save for a few handful of fans who won't let it go.

  11. #11
    Mighty Member Aruran.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,432

    Default

    I swear MJ being a supermodel was only a problem cause the People In Charge at the time thought it would be a smart idea if Peter was married to someone who was always the breadwinner. They just didn't plan that idea very well. She was only a model when she married Peter, she only became a supermodel because no one knew what to do with her as a character.

  12. #12
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    429

    Default

    Having him married to the breadwinner was a good idea but making her a supermodel wasn't. Most comic book women are supermodels and it kills the relatability to the character. A very 90s idea.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertMacQuarrie1 View Post
    Then it shouldn't be a issue, because the book never made MJ into that well known for that long.

    It was dealt with over twenty years ago. No one is obsessing over this save for a few handful of fans who won't let it go.
    She was rather famous for the first year of the Mackie/ Byrne relaunch. And the first two years of the JMS/ Romita Jr run.

    In between that time she was believed dead, which isn't harmful from a publicity standapoint.

  14. #14
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aruran. View Post
    I swear MJ being a supermodel was only a problem cause the People In Charge at the time thought it would be a smart idea if Peter was married to someone who was always the breadwinner. They just didn't plan that idea very well. She was only a model when she married Peter, she only became a supermodel because no one knew what to do with her as a character.
    I don't think that was the case at all. I think it was just an idea to have her more involved in the story. It was an arc with a beginning, middle and end. It was only later that a small handful of people latched onto it to make it seem like it was a giant problem for the series, and made it seem like Peter had married someone who was already world famous.

  15. #15
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    She was rather famous for the first year of the Mackie/ Byrne relaunch.
    Not surprisingly done at the same time that Byrne and Mackie were trying to break the couple up, and were using the "She's a Supermodel" issue to provide justification for breaking the pair up.

    In essence, they created a problem in order to solve it.

    And the first two years of the JMS/ Romita Jr run.
    Not really. She was a model and showed up for movie premiers, but was hardly world famous.

    Her most famous role was as the initial female love interest in a big budget blockbuster, who would be killed off in the first act to make way for the real star.

    That's hardly being world famous.

    In between that time she was believed dead, which isn't harmful from a publicity standpoint.
    And when she returned, she was never depicted as being as famous as she was during the Jonathan Ceaser arc, or during the Byrne/ Mackie runs.

    In other words, the series had moved on from it twenty years ago, and it was only brought back when the creators were trying to create some moral justification for breaking the pair up, essentially inventing a problem in order to give a justification for solving it and resetting the franchise to their preferred status quo.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •