Zendaya's "MJ": Future as a Comics Character?

[Zeitgeist]

MJ was a fairly major presence in Spec even if she wasn't immediately dating Peter but the creators were pretty clear what the intended endgame was. Her introduction episodes literally ended on spider-shaped hearts.

She was a supporting character but she was never a key romance in what they got on screen. That's what's in front of me, that's what I'm largely going by.

MJ was supposed to be in the ASM films but they cut her out to focus on Emma Stone's Gwen...who was given more of an MJ-like role in Peter's life.

MJ-like role in that... they dated? Between her being a brainiac intern at Oscorp and having a police chief as a father - oh and the fact she dies in classic fashion - I never really understood this notion that she was 'MJ-like'.

I would barely call Liz a love interest for Peter in particular, the entire relationship was just Peter being a ridiculously neglectful boyfriend, since we only ever see him running off on her, basically like Debra.

I don't think love interests are purely quantified by whether they ultimately work out well or not. In terms of soap opera dramatics, she solidly counts IMO - much like her double in Homecoming, for example.

Spectacular was absolutely going for the slowburn with Peter and MJ, trying to mimic what the comics did with them.

The Amazing Spider-Man films absolutely planned on introducing MJ. She was cut from ASM 2 but was absolutely planned for ASM 3 to mimic the comics having Peter move on after losing Gwen.

ASM 2 introduced Felicia Hardy, what's to say they wouldn't have done something with her? A lot of "what if?" scenarios and speculation which sure, may have happened to various degrees, but that's all there is.

[Kevinroc]

She was a supporting character but she was never a key romance in what they got on screen. That's what's in front of me, that's what I'm largely going by.

Here's Greg Weisman talking about MJ.

ASM 2 introduced Felicia Hardy, what's to say they wouldn't have done something with her? A lot of "what if?" scenarios and speculation which sure, may have happened to various degrees, but that's all there is.

I think you're happy to downplay MJ's role in the franchise when it's pretty clear it is what it is.

[Lukmendes]

MJ-like role in that... they dated? Between her being a brainiac intern at Oscorp and having a police chief as a father - oh and the fact she dies in classic fashion - I never really understood this notion that she was 'MJ-like'.

The way she interacts with Peter is far closer to the way Peter and MJ interact with each other, and they directly adapted at least one scene from Ultimate MJ to the ASM movies (Which's one of the many things that makes the movie being called "Amazing Spider-Man" be ironic when it takes more after Ultimate).

I don't think love interests are purely quantified by whether they ultimately work out well or not. In terms of soap opera dramatics, she solidly counts IMO - much like her double in Homecoming, for example.

I wasn't even talking about them working out, just that Peter himself doesn't even seem to think of her as his girlfriend despite both of them dating lol.

[John Venus]

I wonder if the original plan with Zendaya's MJ was to do something similar to the comic books where she is introduced as a supporting character and then becomes a love interest over time culminating in a 'you just hit the jackpot' moment. Only, instead of her face, they obscure her name to keep the audience until the last minute.

My head canon has always been that Phillip being an asshole father figure is the reason why she doesn't acknowledge that she is 'Mary Jane Watson'. I hope future movies expands on this.

[Agent Z]

The way she interacts with Peter is far closer to the way Peter and MJ interact with each other,

I didn't see anything about their interactions that was specifically based on Peter and MJ's relationship. The way they acted just seemed like how two people in love acted in general.

and they directly adapted at least one scene from Ultimate MJ to the ASM movies

Which one?

Even if that is the case, the Raimi movies adapted the iconic bridge scene with MJ in place of Gwen so turn about is fair play.

[Lukmendes]

I wonder if the original plan with Zendaya's MJ was to do something similar to the comic books where she is introduced as a supporting character and then becomes a love interest over time culminating in a 'you just hit the jackpot' moment. Only, instead of her face, they obscure her name to keep the audience until the last minute.

Well, that's more or less what Homecoming did, only without anything that actually develops her, so she's kinda there until she says "My friends call me MJ" lol.

My head canon has always been that Phillip being an asshole father figure is the reason why she doesn't acknowledge that she is 'Mary Jane Watson'. I hope future movies expands on this.

If they go for that, maybe they could say she changed her name 'cause she learned her father is the one who named her or somethin'.

I didn't see anything about their interactions that was specifically based on Peter and MJ's relationship. The way they acted just seemed like how two people in love acted in general.

Gwen's snarkiness in general is far closer to the way 616 MJ acts than any other version of Gwen.

Which one?

A scenes where she bandages up Peter or somethin' like that.

Even if that is the case, the Raimi movies adapted the iconic bridge scene with MJ in place of Gwen so turn about is fair play.

Well not surprising, Raimi's MJ is far closer to Gwen as a character, and it's pretty ironic and annoying those movies made them be so interchangeable.

I think that video Kevinroc posted above has Weisman pointing out that MJ's actress from Raimi's movies is blonde and they had her dye her hair red, and Gwen's actress is generally a redhead who had to dye her hair blonde, just to make it more ironic lol.

[Frontier]

I didn't see anything about their interactions that was specifically based on Peter and MJ's relationship. The way they acted just seemed like how two people in love acted in general.

Which one?

Even if that is the case, the Raimi movies adapted the iconic bridge scene with MJ in place of Gwen so turn about is fair play.

Specifically being Peter's confidante and nursing his wounds is seen as more of an MJ thing than a Gwen thing.

[Mister Mets]

I didn't see anything about their interactions that was specifically based on Peter and MJ's relationship. The way they acted just seemed like how two people in love acted in general.




Which one?

Even if that is the case, the Raimi movies adapted the iconic bridge scene with MJ in place of Gwen so turn about is fair play.

I've been hammering this point but it seems weird that a big argument seems to be that there isn't anything special about Mary Jane, but she's the endgame, so they can give completely different attributes to a new version.

I wonder if the original plan with Zendaya's MJ was to do something similar to the comic books where she is introduced as a supporting character and then becomes a love interest over time culminating in a 'you just hit the jackpot' moment. Only, instead of her face, they obscure her name to keep the audience until the last minute.

My head canon has always been that Phillip being an asshole father figure is the reason why she doesn't acknowledge that she is 'Mary Jane Watson'. I hope future movies expands on this.

Apparently her dad was a jerk in cut scenes from Far From Home, but they didn't think it helped the film.

It may also be politically loaded in a way Disney and Sony don't like. Do they want to depict an African-American man or a white man in an interracial relationship as a neglectful father?

[Kevinroc]

I've been hammering this point but it seems weird that a big argument seems to be that there isn't anything special about Mary Jane, but she's the endgame, so they can give completely different attributes to a new version.

Marvel has stripped the identifiable traits out of a lot of their characters. MJ is hardly the only one. Aunt May also experienced this treatment. Even Peter Parker has had a lot of his traits stripped away for the MCU.

Do you want to talk about how the MCU adapted Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne?

I don't know why you feel the need to single out MJ in particular.

[Mister Mets]

Marvel has stripped the identifiable traits out of a lot of their characters. MJ is hardly the only one. Aunt May also experienced this treatment. Even Peter Parker has had a lot of his traits stripped away for the MCU.

Do you want to talk about how the MCU adapted Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne?

I don't know why you feel the need to single out MJ in particular.

It's important in this context because there seems to be a contradiction between the suggestion is she's irreplaceable, and the idea that there's nothing special about her so that a character with different attributes can take her place.

[Kevinroc]

It's important in this context because there seems to be a contradiction between the suggestion is she's irreplaceable, and the idea that there's nothing special about her so that a character with different attributes can take her place.

We've gotten to the point that Peter Parker is replaceable.

[Frontier]

We've gotten to the point that Peter Parker is replaceable.

Well, to a point.

[Kevinroc]

Well, to a point.

I'm just saying that this need to "prove" that MJ is replaceable doesn't mean much when even Peter himself can be replaced.

MJ is still Peter's most iconic love interest.

[Spider-Tiger]

We've gotten to the point that Peter Parker is replaceable.

Yeah I think we've gotten to a point where nothing is really "sacred" with the character anymore. spoilers:

We've now had two adaptations with Aunt May's death; one with Peter Parker's death and another Spider-man taking over; two with middle-aged Parkers, and several involving multiple Spider-characters coming out of the woodwork

end of spoilers

But there's definitely a "classic" status quo that the character will always cycle back to, and MJ has been cemented as being part of that. It's just a shame that, outside of maybe Spectacular, we haven't gotten an adaptation that really embodied her personality from the comics. And I doubt we'll be getting one anytime soon.

I really hope Marvel starts doing some adult Direct-to-Video animated adaptations of their comics like DC.

[Kevinroc]

Yeah I think we've gotten to a point where nothing is really "sacred" with the character anymore. spoilers:

We've now had two adaptations with Aunt May's death; one with Peter Parker's death and another Spider-man taking over; two with middle-aged Parkers, and several involving multiple Spider-characters coming out of the woodwork

end of spoilers

But there's definitely a "classic" status quo that the character will always cycle back to, and MJ has been cemented as being part of that. It's just a shame that, outside of maybe Spectacular, we haven't gotten an adaptation that really embodied her personality from the comics. And I doubt we'll be getting one anytime soon.

I really hope Marvel starts doing some adult Direct-to-Video animated adaptations of their comics like DC.

Marvel legally can't make adaptations with Spider characters over a certain length (I think it's around 42 minutes). That falls into Sony's ownership of the Spider-rights.