2freaky4church1 said:

Me too.
I saw it in I-Max.

With each Spider-Man film, I'm more and more against Kirsten Dunst playing Mary Jane Watson. I can understand that she was cast because the producers wanted a credible actor in the role, but she totally doesn't have that glamorous look that Mary Jane is supposed to have. Bryce Dallas Howard who played Gwen Stacy would have been a better Mary Jane and Kirsten should have played Gwen who is more of a cute, girl-next-door character.

sextonseven said:

I honestly don't get this Bryce Dallas Howard business. People keep saying how gorgeous she is, but her looks are very bland to me. And she has a vacant look to her the whole time she's on screen. No personality at all (and that's even accounting for the underdeveloped role). I'd much prefer Kirsten and her personality taking up screen time.

sextonseven said:

That's EXACTLY what I think. If you look at the comic book MJ she's a total glammed up party babe...Carmen Electra with red hair.

applekisses said:

which is what makes her completely unbelievable and wrong as a girlfriend/wife of Peter Parker.

RZR said:

That's how she's portrayed in the books so how can it be wrong? Peter has said himself many times in the comics that he can't believe he's married to a model like MJ. Her classic first appearance when she meets Peter for the first time, she tells him he just hit the jackpot and his jaw is on the floor. She's supposed to be a knockout.

sextonseven said:

Yes, that's the problem. He's supposed to be a nerdy loser. Yeah, a cute girlfriend, even a pretty one, is fine. But making her a top fashion model is something else again. And when they married him, they pretty much ruined him as a character

I think MJ as portrayed by Dunst is actually the best of both worlds as far as a girlfriend for Peter.

I like this picture with a skinned knee. That's one thing I had about comics, every characters who aren't invincible never get a black eye, split lip, sore ribs or even a run in their stockings. Is it really heroic if you're not in danger of getting hurt. Or in the next scene they look like they just came from the salon.

littlemissG said:

have you read any comics? yeah, a lot of the time there's no visible damage, sometimes there is a lot. depends on how lazy the artist is.

RZR said:

Well, that's an ongoing debate about the Spider-Man comics, on which we are obviously on opposite sides. I think it's possible to have a model wife and still be a nerdy loser. But the Mary Jane dilemma is supposed to be dealt with permanently in the current Spider-Man storyline. Things may go your way.

RZR said:

I don't think so... Weren't they "friends" for a long time before they got married? And Peter changed a lot during this time didn't he?
[Edited 5/7/07 16:21pm]

Peter may have "started" as a nerdy loser... but he becomes a babe magnet... Let's not forget the Black Cat...

coolcat said:

At first the Black Cat was only attracted to Spider-Man and asked Peter to keep his mask on at all times because she couldn't stand to look at his real face. I don't know what their relationship is like now though.

sextonseven said:

if they kill her or divorce them, it damages his character even more. i'd prefer they stayed married than have him be a divorcee or widowed.

sextonseven said:

That's true.

I think they had to change Peter's personality to fit more with his Spiderman persona... I only read the comics after his marriage to MJ. He never seemed socially awkward. On the contrary he seemed to make wisecracks about everyone else around him. I thought Peter understood people very well. Fits with Spiderman as a hero of the people...

RZR said:

But, that's how it was written and has become part of the legend. I've always had issue with Dunst playing MJ. She's just not the right type and doesn't fit the character.

applekisses said:

there has been a LOT that has been written in the Spider-man books that never should have. the movies are a chance to simplify and undo all of the disasters wrought on the character over the last 40 years.

RZR said:

But, those books created the character.

applekisses said:

But only in those books that ran up to about the late 80's to early 90's.
Once the continuity that made Spidey popular to begin with was thrown out the window,
it just became this huge convoluted mess.

Illustrator said:

I see your point. But, that's not the last 40 years - the character has only been around since the late 60s.

applekisses said:

right, but not many people (including their creators) are happy about a lot of the books that have come out in the last 20-30 years.

this is a chance to take what is RIGHT about the character and run with it rather than being a slave to what appeared in the comic books. see also: Clone Saga and what they did to Gwen Stacy's back story about a year or 2 ago.

applekisses said:

early 60's.

applekisses said:

Sorry, but I don't see your point.

RZR said:

That was just absolutely horrible.
And the recent iron-costume was a huge failture. Almost no one liked that.

Illustrator said:[quote]

RZR said:

oh, and i forgot about the fact that the whole world now knows who he is. you KNOW they're going to reverse that, but how, i have no idea. the character is almost useless in the comics at this point.

Spider Man 2 was awesome. This one sucked. I was very disappointed. Too corny, too long, too uneventful. The Gwen Stacy character was a waste, as was the first hour or so.

Total waste. If you haven't seen it, don't waste your money. Just wait until it's on HBO


Smooches;)

Illustrator said:

I was saying, maybe not so clearly, that the character was around for 20 to 30 years before things became "convoluted"

MsMisha319 said:

I agree,'Spider 2' was excellent.I'm not too impressed with this new one.

MsMisha319 said:

I wouldn't go that far. I saw it on an IMAX screen and watching the fight scenes huge like that was worth the price of admission. It won't be the same on your TV set.

RZR said:

That was the premise for the Ultimate Spider-Man title.