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

[Kevinroc]

Well we just had two Spider-Man movies in a row with zero MJ, so I'd say nothing is definite.

Now this is something that should be discussed because considering how those movies went down, do they think that was a mistake? Because Sony rushed off to make a deal with Marvel Studios after these two films. Do you think that would have happened if Emma Stone played MJ?

[Zeitgeist]

Now this is something that should be discussed because considering how those movies went down, do they think that was a mistake? Because Sony rushed off to make a deal with Marvel Studios after these two films. Do you think that would have happened if Emma Stone played MJ?

Lol yes, undoubtedly. The name of Spider-Man's girlfriend had absolutely nothing to do with why both the Amazing films underperformed.

[Kevinroc]

Lol yes, undoubtedly. The name of Spider-Man's girlfriend had absolutely nothing to do with why both the Amazing films underperformed.

Don't get me wrong. Those movies were horrible. But casting Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was a mistake.

[boots]

Don't get me wrong. Those movies were horrible. But casting Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was a mistake.

i don't think the general public cared one way or the other.

[Daniel22]

Don't get me wrong. Those movies were horrible. But casting Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was a mistake.

I thought Emma was great! She was vibrant, funny, interesting.. I thought she brought so much more to the table than Dunst. I also liked the second batch of movies more than the first, though, so that probably has something to do with it. I also think Stone could have done a great MJ, if she had the chance.

I'm not familiar with why the second batch of movies are disliked by some...? What are the most common complaints? Keeping in mind that if you didn't like the second one, you are a racist, of course.

[Kevinroc]

I thought Emma was great! She was vibrant, funny, interesting.. I thought she brought so much more to the table than Dunst. I also liked the second batch of movies more than the first, though, so that probably has something to do with it. I also think Stone could have done a great MJ, if she had the chance.

I'm not familiar with why the second batch of movies are disliked by some...? What are the most common complaints? Keeping in mind that if you didn't like the second one, you are a racist, of course.

Covering familiar ground (the first movie had 40 minutes of Uncle Ben again). The parents subplot in general. Lackluster villains (nobody could compare to William Dafoe or Alfred Molina). No J. Jonah Jameson.

The sequel had the problem of too many villains. We had three villains in the sequel.

Rushed ending.

Bad pacing.

Yeah, I didn't like these movies. But I still think Gwen Stacy was a mistake. Stone should have been MJ. It would have solved a few problems. But not some of the others (like the parents subplot. That needed to not be a thing.)

[Daniel22]

Covering familiar ground (the first movie had 40 minutes of Uncle Ben again). The parents subplot in general. Lackluster villains (nobody could compare to William Dafoe or Alfred Molina). No J. Jonah Jameson.

The sequel had the problem of too many villains. We had three villains in the sequel.

Rushed ending.

Bad pacing.

Yeah, I didn't like these movies. But I still think Gwen Stacy was a mistake. Stone should have been MJ. It would have solved a few problems. But not some of the others (like the parents subplot. That needed to not be a thing.)

I feel the same way about the covering of familiar ground, but I understand it. They have to start at the beginning. It's something all comic readers have to deal with in movies and TV. I thought "Daredevil" did a great job of introducing him to newcomers while keeping it interesting to those of us who know all this already and are ready for the second act.

I will defend the villain problem in the respect that a lot of villains had already been used in the original trilogy. I am glad that they didn't re-use any, personally. I think the Lizard was well-done. I found this Goblin story to be more interesting than the first one. Doc Ock was great, no doubt. SandMan and Venom, and Electro, less so. It's interesting that both movies had a "too many villains" moment...

I agree with you on the parents subplot. I like keeping Parker as close to a normal person, pre-Spidey, as possible. So the Totem idea by JMS, while interesting and well-done, really didn't work for me. It changes the whole dynamic when Peter isn't just in the wrong place in the wrong time in his origin. Same idea with the parents being secret agents or the second arc of movie-stuff.

I am behind Stone, 100%. I think she was one of, if not the best, part of the movies. Gwen, MJ, it doesn't matter... she was just so damn charming.

[Kevinroc]

I feel the same way about the covering of familiar ground, but I understand it. They have to start at the beginning. It's something all comic readers have to deal with in movies and TV. I thought "Daredevil" did a great job of introducing him to newcomers while keeping it interesting to those of us who know all this already and are ready for the second act.

I think there's a difference between Daredevil's TV handling and Spider-Man. The original Daredevil film came out in 2003. The Daredevil series came out in 2015.

Spider-Man 1 came out in 2002. Spider-Man 2 came out in 2004. Spider-Man 3 came out in 2007. Amazing Spider-Man came out in 2012. Amazing Spider-Man 2 came out in 2014. Spider-Man didn't really go away for over 10 years like Daredevil did. (This is without bringing up various cartoons, video games, and even the Broadway play.)

Doing the origin again was seen as a mistake.

I will defend the villain problem in the respect that a lot of villains had already been used in the original trilogy. I am glad that they didn't re-use any, personally. I think the Lizard was well-done. I found this Goblin story to be more interesting than the first one. Doc Ock was great, no doubt. SandMan and Venom, and Electro, less so. It's interesting that both movies had a "too many villains" moment...

Harry appeared as the Goblin twice. In Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2.

I agree with you on the parents subplot. I like keeping Parker as close to a normal person, pre-Spidey, as possible. So the Totem idea by JMS, while interesting and well-done, really didn't work for me. It changes the whole dynamic when Peter isn't just in the wrong place in the wrong time in his origin. Same idea with the parents being secret agents or the second arc of movie-stuff.

I think the parents stuff takes away from how important Uncle Ben's death was, and that Peter blames himself for not stopping the guy when he had the chance. Because ASM certainly forgot how important Uncle Ben was in comparison to Richard Parker. Ugh...

I am behind Stone, 100%. I think she was one of, if not the best, part of the movies. Gwen, MJ, it doesn't matter... she was just so damn charming.

I think a lot of people forgive these movies their terrible decisions because of how much they like Stone. Doesn't change that these movies were awful Spider-Man films with bad Spider-Man priorities.

(Unless you want to argue Richard Parker is more important to the Spider-Man narrative than Aunt May.)

[Daniel22]

I think there's a difference between Daredevil's TV handling and Spider-Man. The original Daredevil film came out in 2003. The Daredevil series came out in 2015.

Spider-Man 1 came out in 2002. Spider-Man 2 came out in 2004. Spider-Man 3 came out in 2007. Amazing Spider-Man came out in 2012. Amazing Spider-Man 2 came out in 2014. Spider-Man didn't really go away for over 10 years like Daredevil did. (This is without bringing up various cartoons, video games, and even the Broadway play.)

Doing the origin again was seen as a mistake.



Harry appeared as the Goblin twice. In Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2.



I think the parents stuff takes away from how important Uncle Ben's death was, and that Peter blames himself for not stopping the guy when he had the chance. Because ASM certainly forgot how important Uncle Ben was in comparison to Richard Parker. Ugh...



I think a lot of people forgive these movies their terrible decisions because of how much they like Stone. Doesn't change that these movies were awful Spider-Man films with bad Spider-Man priorities.

(Unless you want to argue Richard Parker is more important to the Spider-Man narrative than Aunt May.)

Agree to disagree about retelling of origin. I was just using Daredevil's TV show as an example of telling the origin while remaining engaging for the people who already know the story. I wasn't even thinking about the movie, honestly (willful amnesia?).

I can see both sides of the Richard/Ben argument. It's possible that the writers wanted to give a twist to the origin/motivations, perhaps because of the issue we are discussing: overkill of the same old straightforward "lack of responsibility leads to Ben's death" origin. Although we are still shown how Peter blames himself for Ben's death, if I recall correctly.

On the other hand, if you prefer that the movies stay very close to the original comics, I can see how you wouldn't care for it. I personally like it when we get twists/re-imaginings in the movies. I don't want to see a shot for shot remake of a story I already know. I think "Guardians" was a great example of staying true to what worked in the comics while adjusting the story smartly for the screen. I just look at the comics being an inspirational source for the movies, not as a bible or strict set of guidelines. It lets me enjoy the movies a lot more, without worrying about what matches or what doesn't fit or whatever.

[Frontier]

Well, I think the issue is that the emphasis on Richard Parker detracted from the focus and screentime on Aunt May and Uncle Ben who as characters and in their relationship with Peter are meant to be far more focal in the story of Spider-Man than Richard Parker is.

I for one thought that all the focus on Richard Parker and Peter's angst over that in the first ASM movie made it more difficult to see how close Peter and Uncle Ben were, and didn't make Peter's reaction to his death mean as much as it could have.

Casting Stone as Gwen was a double-edged sword in that it provided the movie with a charming and enjoyable female lead who had great chemistry with the male lead, and who audiences really loved on the screen, and even ultimately proved to be one of the few universally loved aspect of the reboot...but who was ultimately always intended to be killed off, which sabotaged the franchise.

[Kevinroc]

The the issue is to me wheter Marvel gives a crap about romance in a Spider-Man title and wants it promoted, Peter Parker inevitably is just like any other basic superhero protagonist that has to be excitable and full of action, his slice of life soap opera aspects were second fiddle compared to the actual focus of Peter's power and force of role with them, the drama especially with romance shouldn't be equally correspondent to the true essence of the series which is Spider-Man executing great responsibilty with his great power as Spider-Man, and they're has been so many stories where Peter is doomed to have no stable happiness as Spider-Man and Peter with MJ or a family without retiring or quitting as Spidey which means the end of Peter's stories as a hero, this hammers in the message that Peter is a coming of age character and only progress as far as fundamentally as learning can take him not actually being at the peak of maturity and growth.

Peter is like Ryu from Street Figthter in a sense, he will never stop trying to yearn for actual progress, potential and enlightenment due to feeling himself not complete nor ready to take on his ultimate path as a man who is free from his self inflicted guilt and conscience from failure and a existential crisis.

I can't wait for the day Spider-Man shows up in Super Smash Bros. I wonder what his final smash would be.

Agree to disagree about retelling of origin. I was just using Daredevil's TV show as an example of telling the origin while remaining engaging for the people who already know the story. I wasn't even thinking about the movie, honestly (willful amnesia?).

I can see both sides of the Richard/Ben argument. It's possible that the writers wanted to give a twist to the origin/motivations, perhaps because of the issue we are discussing: overkill of the same old straightforward "lack of responsibility leads to Ben's death" origin. Although we are still shown how Peter blames himself for Ben's death, if I recall correctly.

On the other hand, if you prefer that the movies stay very close to the original comics, I can see how you wouldn't care for it. I personally like it when we get twists/re-imaginings in the movies. I don't want to see a shot for shot remake of a story I already know. I think "Guardians" was a great example of staying true to what worked in the comics while adjusting the story smartly for the screen. I just look at the comics being an inspirational source for the movies, not as a bible or strict set of guidelines. It lets me enjoy the movies a lot more, without worrying about what matches or what doesn't fit or whatever.

I liked Ant-Man quite a bit. And it does what you're talking about staying true to what worked in the comics. When Scott Lang talks about how important his daughter is to him, I felt like that was the character from the comics on the screen, even though the circumstances to his becoming Ant-Man were different.

The Amazing films did not do that. And I point to Richard Parker as an example of that. Peter in the comics has never had this obsession with his biological father that these movies portrayed him as. We can see why it didn't work. Peter had all but seemingly forgotten Uncle Ben by ASM 2. (When Aunt May says Uncle Ben should be the graduation, Peter chimes in and says Richard Parker should be there too. That is not Peter Parker. I wanted to see that character get slapped for that disrespectful comment.)

[Daniel22]

I can't wait for the day Spider-Man shows up in Super Smash Bros. I wonder what his final smash would be.



I liked Ant-Man quite a bit. And it does what you're talking about staying true to what worked in the comics. When Scott Lang talks about how important his daughter is to him, I felt like that was the character from the comics on the screen, even though the circumstances to his becoming Ant-Man were different.

The Amazing films did not do that. And I point to Richard Parker as an example of that. Peter in the comics has never had this obsession with his biological father that these movies portrayed him as. We can see why it didn't work. Peter had all but seemingly forgotten Uncle Ben by ASM 2. (When Aunt May says Uncle Ben should be the graduation, Peter chimes in and says Richard Parker should be there too. That is not Peter Parker. I wanted to see that character get slapped for that disrespectful comment.)

I see what you mean, and understand where you are coming from. We just have a fundamental difference in the way in which we approach and view the movies. You have a strong feeling of what is and what isn't Parker, how he should act, and don't enjoy much coloring outside of those lines, it seems. You have a picture of Spidey in your head, and don't care for anything else, perhaps? I don't have those feelings, or at least only in the slightest. I don't feel like there is one way to portray Spidey. I think of him as inspiration and raw material for creators to make stories out of. I look at it like an item of food: one chef might grill it, another might sauté it, while another might fry it. They are all equally valid to me. Neither of our viewpoints are right or wrong, just different.

It seems like Spidey, moreso than any other character, has more fans that adhere to your way of thinking. I feel like I hear and read so many more "That is not Peter Parker"-type comments than I do about any other character. I think the vast majority of fans have their One True Version of Spidey in their heads and dislike mostly anything else. I believe other characters get more leeway from fans.

Does anyone else feel that way? Are Spidey fans the most rigid, "Peter Parker is only and always THIS way" group? (I think it's relevant to this thread because, clearly, most posters have very strong and unwavering views on he should FOR SURE be married/not married... MY Peter would never make a deal with a demon.. etc.)

[Confuzzled]

Casting Stone as Gwen was a double-edged sword in that it provided the movie with a charming and enjoyable female lead who had great chemistry with the male lead, and who audiences really loved on the screen, and even ultimately proved to be one of the few universally loved aspect of the reboot...but who was ultimately always intended to be killed off, which sabotaged the franchise.

It's only poetic that the franchise collapsed once Stone had her swan song. There really was no reason for it to exist once the beloved romance came to an abrupt end.

I wonder if that in some part has made Marvel even more wary against making romance a crucial aspect of Spider-Man in any medium. Cast or feature a charismatic actress or character like Emma Stone or Mary Jane and the romance threatens to overshadow the entire story, cast or feature a dull, forgettable actress or character and folks won't care or in the worst case scenario like Carlie's, actively root against the love interest, and in turn, the entire direction chosen for the story.

ETA: Yes, I know Marvel didn't cast Stone in the reboot but the gist of my point remains the same regarding Marvel's dilemma regarding the Spider-Romance.

[Zeitgeist]

I see what you mean, and understand where you are coming from. We just have a fundamental difference in the way in which we approach and view the movies. You have a strong feeling of what is and what isn't Parker, how he should act, and don't enjoy much coloring outside of those lines, it seems. You have a picture of Spidey in your head, and don't care for anything else, perhaps? I don't have those feelings, or at least only in the slightest. I don't feel like there is one way to portray Spidey. I think of him as inspiration and raw material for creators to make stories out of. I look at it like an item of food: one chef might grill it, another might sauté it, while another might fry it. They are all equally valid to me. Neither of our viewpoints are right or wrong, just different.

It seems like Spidey, moreso than any other character, has more fans that adhere to your way of thinking. I feel like I hear and read so many more "That is not Peter Parker"-type comments than I do about any other character. I think the vast majority of fans have their One True Version of Spidey in their heads and dislike mostly anything else. I believe other characters get more leeway from fans.

Does anyone else feel that way? Are Spidey fans the most rigid, "Peter Parker is only and always THIS way" group? (I think it's relevant to this thread because, clearly, most posters have very strong and unwavering views on he should FOR SURE be married/not married... MY Peter would never make a deal with a demon.. etc.)

I think you hit quite a few nails on the head with this post. You've expressed my thoughts far more eloquently than I ever could.

[cyberhubbs]

I see what you mean, and understand where you are coming from. We just have a fundamental difference in the way in which we approach and view the movies. You have a strong feeling of what is and what isn't Parker, how he should act, and don't enjoy much coloring outside of those lines, it seems. You have a picture of Spidey in your head, and don't care for anything else, perhaps? I don't have those feelings, or at least only in the slightest. I don't feel like there is one way to portray Spidey. I think of him as inspiration and raw material for creators to make stories out of. I look at it like an item of food: one chef might grill it, another might sauté it, while another might fry it. They are all equally valid to me. Neither of our viewpoints are right or wrong, just different.

It seems like Spidey, moreso than any other character, has more fans that adhere to your way of thinking. I feel like I hear and read so many more "That is not Peter Parker"-type comments than I do about any other character. I think the vast majority of fans have their One True Version of Spidey in their heads and dislike mostly anything else. I believe other characters get more leeway from fans.

Does anyone else feel that way? Are Spidey fans the most rigid, "Peter Parker is only and always THIS way" group? (I think it's relevant to this thread because, clearly, most posters have very strong and unwavering views on he should FOR SURE be married/not married... MY Peter would never make a deal with a demon.. etc.)

Yup. There doesn't seem to be a lot of room in the fanbase for change. Gets his own company? NOT MY PETER PARKER.