The Amazing Spider-Man (The Movies)

[Emperor Robrainiac]

Aw man, they made the webbing on the suit look like the Rami ones... I never really liked that one much.

 

I gotta say I really do like how the eyes look on the suit, though.

[turbojet]

Okay, I love comic books. By extension, I also like comic book movies(Not the Raimi films and not the fucking Hulk movie). But I hate comic book fans.

 

EDITORIAL: Making Shailene Woodley Hot Enough To Play MJ In TASM 2

We've all seen the pics, but what can be done now that filming has started on Marc Webb's Spidey sequel? Plenty! Read on for my tips, which if followed to the letter will make Miss Woodley "model hot" enough to play every nerd's wet dream, Mary Jane Watson..

Mark "RorMachine" Cassidy - 2/28/2013

When Shailene Woodley was cast as Mary Jane Watson in Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man sequel, fans weren't best pleased - and rightly so. One Google search of the actress is enough to know that she looks almost nothing like the super-hot, incredibly bone-able character from the comics! I mean look, this pic is all that is needed to prove it..



See? The fictional, ink and pencil MJ is SMOKIN, while the actual human being just doesn't match up! WTF?? I mean don't get me wrong, the chick can look pretty do-able when she's all done up for a magazine shoot or whatever, but walking around like that in the real world? Just isn't gonna cut it sweetheart. People don't seem to understand: MJ is supposed to be unattainable, the nerd's wet dream, a girl Peter Parker would never even dream would look twice at him. And Woodley? Sorry, but I reckon any one of us would have a shot at that in a bar after a few too many Tequilas...Amarite? So I've decided to help Marc Webb and Sony out a little here. Woodley is cast, filming has commenced, not a lot they can do about that - but for future scenes? If they follow my tips the situation might just be salvageable. We'll start with the most important thing:

TITS:

Look at the pic - comic MJ has lovely big disproportionate ones, Woodley doesn't. Now obviously surgery would be the best route, but that's highly unlikely so I recommend padding. It's very simple, just stick a stuffed Wonderbra on the chick, and any scenes requiring actual semi or full (hey, we can hope!) nudity can utilize CGI! It's a magical age for cinema folks.

FACE:

Woodley is cute, MJ is hot - big difference. Why is it so hard for them to cast these roles properly? Just match up an actress to the picture in the comic! We were denied our raging hard-on with Kirsten "Snaggletooth" Dunst, and now it seems we are destined to leave the theater with clean pants once again. But like I said, damage is done, so let's focus on the positives. Woodley looks nice enough with a bit of slap on so just keep her that way. Don't let her walk around all normal looking between takes where she can be photographed, and fans can see the pics plastered all over the net, giving them a [frick]ing aneurysm! Have her look her absolute best at all times and maybe we'll go see your movie.

HAIR:

Think dying your actress' hair red is enough? Not for us comic purists. Look at Woodley, then look at the comic version of MJ. Notice the difference? That's right, the drawing's hair is...bigger!

ASS:

Honestly, Woodley is doing alright in this area. Sure she could use a bit more junk in the trunk, and hot-model-porn-lookalikes DO tend to have longer legs, but what the Hell! We'll let that one slide - who says fanboys can't be reasonable?

ACTING ABILITY

We're not idiots, we know this is also important! It's just not the MOST important thing. I mean, acting can be taught, but you can't teach an actor how to look like the comic character they're playing, now can you? But, by all accounts (I haven't seen her in anything, but whatever) Woodley is a good actress so once they sort out her looks, everything should be okay.

That should just about cover it. Apply these changes Mr Webb and MAYBE you won't have an enormous flop on your hands. Yours sincerely, the REAL comic book fans.
 

 

And don't believe that disclaimer at the bottom folks,. They added that only after people saw this article and went ape shit. Also this site is notorious for sexualizing women.

 

Look, I never complained about Kirsten Dunst's looks as I knew no woman on Earth could possible match Mary Jane in appearance as she is a fantasy. However, it was never M.J.s look that made her the character that I love. It was always the personality. When someone says shit like this....FUCK!

[Speederino]

So the movie is going to be a flop because there's a woman who isn't as hot as the character she portrays. And the entirety of Mary Jane's appeal comes from dat ass.

 

Internet logic folks, don't try to follow it.

[turbojet]

Hilarious thing.

 

Mary Jane got the inverse treatment of Woodley before.

[Sami]

GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYSGSDISAUDIASDUUASYDUASYDASD

 

 

 

I totally expected this and yet... I still...

 

Edited May 8, 2013 by Discoid

[Chaos Warp]

​Please let that choice of clothes be a coincidence 

[King Frosty]

This is all Emma Stone's fault

She wanted herself to die

Now we must brace ourselves next year

[Tornado]

They're filming the movie about 30 minutes away from where I live.

[Johnny Boy]

GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYSGSDISAUDIASDUUASYDUASYDASD

 

 

 

I totally expected this and yet... I still...

 

Holy Crap

[Wraith]

WAIT GUYS

what if they're deliberately giving us these clues to throw us off so they can just kill Mary Jane instead?

[Chaos Warp]

WAIT GUYS

what if they're deliberately giving us these clues to throw us off so they can just kill Mary Jane instead?

I suppose those thoughts will keep us reasonably content until then........

[Celestia]

I think we all know who they're really going to kill off.

 

 

 

 

 

... I refuse to post the 616 death for obvious reasons :V

 

Seriously though, I'm thinking Wraith might be right and they're just messing with us. XP

Edited May 8, 2013 by elementofchaos

[Sean]

I'm going to place my bets on Gwen not dying in a future ASM movie. I know it's not entirely in my favor but hear me out:

 

Gwen is actually an extremely compelling character in ASM1. I'm sure there's more to her in the comics than I'm aware of, but it feels like to the general public, Gwen's death is really the only thing most people know about. Mention Gwen Stacey and the first thing that pops up in people's minds about her is "Oh, she was the one who died, huh."

 

I feel like the movies would benefit hugely from subverting our expectations and not killing her off. Perhaps the writers could hint at it, but totally pull the rug from under our feet. I feel like Gwen's death is something that everyone is already bracing for, and maybe that's preventing some people from getting too attached to her. I think it would be a much bigger, and more pleasant, surprise if they just kept her around, because I believe she's the most relatable character in the first movie. I really loved her and I can't think of a more perfect love interest in a superhero movie because she was intelligent, relatable, down to earth, and was capable of figuring out stuff on her own and doing the best she can to assist the hero rather than watch from the sidelines or having to fight herself.

 

So yeah, I am all for keeping Gwen alive if it means she can continue being just as awesome as she was in ASM1. They shouldn't kill her off just to remain faithful to the comic version, in which her death is her most recognized trait. Again, I'm sure there is far more to her character than I know of; I'm not a huge comic book fan. But it would definitely be a much bigger surprise if they didn't kill her off, and I think that would be a more beneficial decision. Killing her off just because that's an important element of her character... well I find it depressing that the reason why a girl (or any character) is famous is because of their death.

[Chibinuva]

...so this is still juat speculation right? It's possible they're just messing with us right? ...right? ... I need a moment ;a;

[Sami]

So yeah, I am all for keeping Gwen alive if it means she can continue being just as awesome as she was in ASM1. They shouldn't kill her off just to remain faithful to the comic version, in which her death is her most recognized trait. Again, I'm sure there is far more to her character than I know of; I'm not a huge comic book fan. But it would definitely be a much bigger surprise if they didn't kill her off, and I think that would be a more beneficial decision. Killing her off just because that's an important element of her character... well I find it depressing that the reason why a girl (or any character) is famous is because of their death.

 

Well, when I said it's an important part of "the" character, I was more so referring to Spider-Man than Gwen herself. If it was just a thing her character was recognizable for, then yeah, I'd say it'd be a passable thing to get rid of.

 

But her death was one of the most iconic, pivotal moments in Spider-Man's entire history. Over fifty years of stories and one of the most instantly recognizable parts is her death; and this is in a medium where "Uncle Ben is the only one who stays dead". Gwen's death is almost as important to Spidey's history as Uncle Ben's, I honestly think it needs to be in there. 

 

I really loved Gwen too, but I'd personally be disappointed if they wimp out of this one. If Nolan had the balls to kill Rachel off and make her a huge part of both Bruce and Harvey's character development from then on, Webb can and should do the same with Gwen. 

 

At least, that's the way I see it.

 

Edit - Not to mention Spider-Man getting married to MJ was also just as iconic a moment in the series' history. Pretty sure they advertised the shit out of that, too. Then there's the influence of the Raimi movies to think about; people who know nothing about Spider-Man think of MJ as Spidey's girlfriend and the female lead. They have to make the switch eventually, and the biggest reason for it in the comics was MJ consoling him and being there for him when he was grieving over Gwen's death.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Discoid

[Sean]

To be honest I see every incarnation of a character as being more or less a blank slate, or at least as blank as one could get while still keeping old incarnations in mind. I'm sure that Gwen's death had a huge impact on Peter's character in the comics, but it doesn't mean it has to in this version. This is the Andrew Garfield version of Spider-Man, not the comic version. They could find other ways to develop him. Which ways, I'm not entirely sure (I don't think anyone is, though).

 

If they can find a way to change Spider-Man's development process and not merely strip it, then I am all for going against historical norms. Not killing off Gwen may be a controversial decision, but fuck it. I would be supportive of the decision all the way, considering she was one of the only major female figures in the first movie, and a damn good one at that.

 

Really, I just don't see the point in keeping to tradition just for the sake of tradition. Change things up, make it interesting again and subvert our expectations. Batman does it all the time, so why not Spider-Man?

[Badnik Zero]

Yeah but that's just because we know our comic business. A bunch of people watching the first movie were like, "Hey wait where is MJ". Which means this major development point doesn't need to be subverted at all.

[pppp]

Oh don't worry Sean, even if she dies there's always cloning :

 

 

 

I apologize to any Spidey Comics fan growing up in the 90s for reminding you of this. I will proceed to slap myself silly.

[Meow]

Seeing the new suit on the last page there makes me feel sad kinda. I mean the suit is cool and all, being more faithful to the comics design...

But I am incredibly disappointed because I -love- the suit design from the first movie. If they managed to just alter that costume's mask to be like the mask on the new one I'd be totally content. Not that the new suit is awful (I do like Spidey's classic design) I just really enjoyed the look of the last one. It was new/different and I'm sad to see it go.

[PeanutButterDimond]

I am one of those who wants to see Gwen die. For the reasons Discoid said and because I want to see this moment adapted finally. No adaption has done this scene before if I'm not mistaken which is a crime for one of the most pivotal and iconic scenes in comic book history. I love Gwen in the first movie and so did many which will just make her death more meaningful.

[turbojet]

The difference between Batman and Spider-man is that Spider-man is a hero in spite his continued failures while Batman is a hero because it is his duty to be. Name 1 loss that Batman endured that may him quit being Batman. Jason Todd's death didn't even shake him to reconsider his no killing policy on the man who killed his adopted son. And now we have the death of Damien Wayne, his biological son, and he still wants to be Batman. He questions his activity as Batman, but he never acts on it because being Batman is too much for him. It superseded his sons. Sure, Batman lost Rachel Dawes in the Dark Knight Rises, but Nolan didn't really highlight the importance of Rachel Dawes as a character nor did Batman give much a shit when she died. One crying scene doesn't cut it. I mean that it didn't affect his actions as a superhero. Batman carried on being Batman as if she didn't matter. Bruce gave a shit, however, but that it is almost inhuman of a character to not lose focus of their ideals when their loved one's death was caused indirectly because it. Whoever kills Gwen Stacey, as I'm uncertain who will because there are more villains in this film than Spider-man 3...and that unnerves me, will feel the personal fury of a man who lost a loved one and it won't be bounded by the silly notion that super heroes in grief won't kill or attempt to kill because of an ideological standard or because he has killed before.

 

Gwen Stacey's death literally changed the theme of Spider-man and his superhero life.Every Spider-man adaptation dealt with the fear of his loved ones being affected by the superhero life. Before One More Day, Peter couldn't go ten issues without something from his life as Spider-man coming into the life as Peter Parker. If Gwen Stacey dies, it will have a phenomenal impact on the character as til this day Spider-man still mourns her loss. When she died in every other adaptation, Peter wasn't the same character anymore as it took several comic book years for him to move on Mary Jane nor was Spider-man because it was the first thing he thought of when he failed at the most mundane task as a superhero. He even quit being Spider-man because of this before eventually taking up the mantle. To show how significant death of loved ones in Spider-man, Miles Morales, the new Ultimate Spider-man, just lost his mom after already losing his uncle. Denying Gwen Stacey her death is ignoring a central theme of Spider-man. It has little to do with historical precedence, but simply following through with the message.

[Toby]

I guess I'm the only one who really only wants Gwen dead because I found her annoying in the first movie...

[Carbo]

I guess I'm the only one who really only wants Gwen dead because I found her annoying in the first movie...

I have no connection to her either honestly. She's the only character that's actually a character in the movie but that doesn't say much considering I have no emotional attachment to any of the characters.

Still think this movie is garbage and that the sequel needs to prove its worth under another director and writers that actually understand the series, go figure.

[Sean]

I'm more concerned with Gwen as a character than Gwen as a tool for Spider-Man's development considering the first movie did a bang-up job making me like her a lot, but that's just me. Whatever impact she had on Spidey in the comics, I just don't see it as necessary in the film version, and even if it did happen in a sequel, there's a chance it probably wouldn't even have the impact that everyone is hoping it would considering ASM1 lifted a lot of elements from the Raimi films rather half-heartedly and one of my main criticisms of the film is that it didn't have as much heart as the movies that came before it.

[turbojet]

Well okay, I'll give you that Gwen is a decent character, but in a 2 and half hour movie, it needs to focus on Spider-man and her death is plot development for the character. Out all of  the Spider-man mythos, Gwen Stacey has only died in two adaptations of Spider-man in which she was a main character. Both are in the comics and in one, you could argue that she never really died to begin with. There are so many different adaptations that keep the character alive for just the reason you are stating(because she is a good character), but that is no good reason not to kill her off. If anything, that is a very good reason to kill her off because you have emotional attachment to the character thus her death would mean something to the audience as well just like her death did in the original. Yes, I get that she may be a likable character, but that isn't a certificate to just ignore that part of the character. I understand taking liberties to tell your own story, but respect certain elements of the characters and what they mean instead of keeping her alive for the sake of keeping her alive and then doing nothing relevant with the character afterwards. If Gwen Stacey were to be kept alive, she would be holding other characters back such as Mary Jane who pretty much needs Gwen's death if she wants any development of her own. But you are right that this series needs to flesh out characters before giving Stacey the bridge. The introductions of Harry Osborne and Mary Jane are important as well and maybe they might want to hold off on bridge shit until we get some dynamic of the characters as Norman Osborne hasn't even been introduced properly yet.  If it isn't this movie, then it might be the next movie after this one if there is one.

 

Anyways, I heard a crazy rumor that they are thinking about killing Peter Parker off in the end of the series to introduce Miles Morales. I can dream...