Just got back from seeing it. I usually need some time (and a second viewing) to fully process my thoughts on a film, but my initial impression is that I loved it. I'd be a little surprised if it wound up in my own personal top 5 MCU films, but there was a lot to like here.
[hide]I'll have more thoughts later, but totally agree on the illusions. Those were some very cool visuals, both the first time before he got hit by a train and on the bridge in the final confrontation. Stunning stuff. Makes me wish they hadn't killed Mysterio, assuming he's truly dead. I think the scene where his villainy was revealed was a bit clumsy, the way he just started randomly listing all these people whose names I'm never going to remember, but he was pretty cool overall.
I'm okay with them not going too in-depth on the ramifications of the "blip" (I still like "Snap" or "Snapture" or "Vanishing" or a number of other things better, but...). I liked the nods towards some of the weirder ones like younger siblings now being older, but there's waaaaaay too much to explore in one movie without making the entire movie about it. They kinda did the only thing they really could, given that they had Peter Parker's story to tell and didn't want to take focus off him. You'd probably need a TV series or, hell, a book to really dig into the complexities. Also doesn't help that most of this film was designed to be relatively light-hearted, and that would have been a pretty major downer.
I'm still reeling from that mid-credits scene. Holy shit, holy shit. I had heard rumors that the mid/post-credits scenes were doozies, but I was expecting something like a Norman Osborn/Sinister Six reveal or something, not [i]that.[/i] Part of me is kinda sad that the only true secret identity in the MCU movies has been exposed since that feels like such a classic superhero trait that the movies have largely ignored, but man, what a twist. I was going to quibble with the idea that people would actually believe Spider-Man was a villain, but I guess his heroics have all been small-scale or out of the public eye, so I guess I can buy it. And I adore JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson and couldn't be happier to see him back.[/hide]
Posted July 3rd
by white lancer
[hide]The footage of the dusting made me say what the fuck. I know Ive seen End Game Twice (or three times not sure) but it was very unsettling seeing people get snapped out of existence through a candid video.
I wonder if they will show the ramifications in The Falcon and Bucky show or even for Black Panther 2. (A continent already raged by poverty has half its population snapped back into existence after a 5 year period with out them. That is bound to cause problems) I dont think mysterio is dead.
I am sure that was a fake out.
Edited July 3rd
[hide]Yeah, that casual depiction of a dusting at the start was pretty brutal given how traumatic the previous instances of dusting were, and this is in a crappy high school news film! Hell, until this film, Ant-Man and the Wasp probably had the most impactful/brutal post-credits scene across the entire MCU with the dusting of the Pyms and Ant-Man being trapped. As a whole, the world did seem to get back to "normal" post-Snap conveniently quickly, and if Feige plans to gloss over that 5-year period with mostly jokes instead of exploring the more serious ramifications, I think I would have preferred they not go with just a huge time jump. As we discussed on the Endgame thread, the Snap itself would have been traumatic, but it's the 5-year gap that really would have exacerbated everything and caused all sorts of problems worldwide, such that everyone's return might be even more catastrophic than the initial disappearance. This might not have been the film to explore that, but I'd like a deeper exploration soon, maybe in the Falcon/Bucky series like you mentioned. Otherwise, the whole 5-year jump is effectively just a 1-movie shock.
Most of the high school stuff worked really well in this film IMO. MJ and Peter had some great, realistic high school crush chemistry going on there, way better than previous iterations (Garfield and Stone had the chemistry/acting chops, but their romance always felt more adult and was often held back by poor writing/dialogue). This was necessary given how Zendaya was pretty much a glorified extra in the first film, and they were legitimately cute here. The Betty/Ned stuff was really funny pretty much every time it showed up. I think the one aspect that didn't really work for me was Brad--it was cool that they had at least a little focus on one of the previously younger kids who had "aged up" during the 5 years, but mostly he felt like a villain/rival straight out of a romantic comedy. MJ's feelings about him were never really touched on, and the film seems to depict her with some level of interest early on only to jettison them entirely with no comment, and he was so underdeveloped as a character it was hard to take him seriously as a rival for Peter. I did enjoy the accidental drone strike call on him, though that does portray Tony as being seriously irresponsible to give Peter all this tech without so much as a primer.
Speaking of, I find it interesting that both of the MCU Spider-Man villains were essentially Tony-created. It sorta points to a wider MCU theme regarding Tony's character that I've always rather liked: he focuses on the big picture, and as someone who has lived with power and privilege his whole life, it makes a lot of sense that he wouldn't notice or care about the effects his actions had on normal people. And sure, when he really screws up (like with Ultron), he can sorta recognize it, hence his shift from "privatizing world peace" to supporting the Sokovia Accords...but he definitely still has blind spots. And Peter has sort of become our ground-level viewpoint for some of those blindspots with these two villains (and at the same time, they've taken pains to give both of them connections to Peter himself). Tony's also wound up filling the "Uncle Ben" role in the MCU, which is something I think this iteration of Spider-Man really needed. It's a nice way to hit similar beats without showing us the Uncle Ben origin story [i]again[/i]. It's a [i]little[/i] unfortunate that Peter's friendship with a mega-billionaire removes his working-class hero vibe (and prevents the MCU from using him to commentate on class issues like they use Black Panther for race or Captain Marvel for gender), but ultimately there's a lot of good that's come from the Parker/Stark dynamic.
I'd tend to agree that Mysterio's pretty likely not to be dead, if only because his framing of Peter at the end doesn't really make sense unless he's still out there and playing a bigger game. I mean, the movie made it pretty clear that he only wanted Peter dead for pragmatic reasons and didn't have it out for him personally--matter of fact, he seemed disappointed that he was going to have to kill Peter, at least initially. So for him to jump straight into [i]completely and utterly ruining Peter's life[/i] would seem like an act of spite that doesn't really track from what we'd seen of Mysterio unless he were still alive and plotting something. They have a body to explain, though, so it can't be as simple as a handwaved "he illusioned himself away."
That mid-credits scene is a much more infuriating cliffhanger than [i]Infinity War[/i]'s, since at least we knew that would be resolved within a year. This one makes the probable [i]Black Widow[/i]/[i]The Eternals[/i] slate next year even more obnoxious because we likely won't get even a hint of the fallout from this for a few years. I'm still not sure it entirely makes sense, in that I'm not sure how believable most people would find it--after all, even with Stark and Steve out of commission, there are still other heroes who could testify both that Peter was instrumental in the fight against Thanos (Strange, T'Challa, Wanda, Rhodey) and that he was the beloved protege of the world's favorite superhero. Not to mention that they probably would have been better off not outing his identity, since it's much harder to buy a sixteen-year-old kid as a mass-murdering criminal mastermind. That said, I understand the desire to pull back on the whole "superheroes as beloved celebrities" thing, given that it limits possible conflicts down the line. And it was a hell of a sucker-punch--it's not often that I get caught completely off-guard like that, and it's close enough to believable that I can let my issues go. I just...want to see what happens next, and I have no idea when we'll see that![/hide]
Edited July 4th
by white lancer
I was just thinking to my self what the next mcu movie would be and honestly didn't know loo
Posted July 4th
I just can’t wait to see endgame on DVD
Posted July 4th
Based off of the filming/casting information we have, it sounds like we can be pretty confident that [i]Black Widow[/i] is next, early in 2020. The second 2020 film is a little unclear, but we know it's not going to be [i]Black Panther 2[/i] or [i]Guardians 3[/i] since production/writing on those isn't far enough along yet. Most of the speculation I've seen has pointed to [i]The Eternals[/i] being the likely culprit, but it could be [i]Doctor Strange 2[/i] or even [i]Shang-Chi[/i], both of which I'd much prefer.
We're actually entering a strangely empty season as far as overall MCU stuff goes. Now that [i]Far From Home[/i] has dropped, there's six episodes of [i]Agents of SHIELD[/i] left and that's probably it for the rest of 2019. Compare that to the end of last year, which saw Marvel drop new seasons of [i]Iron Fist[/i], [i]Luke Cage[/i], [i]Daredevil[/i], and [i]Runaways[/i], while the first half of this year had three movies along with new seasons of [i]Punisher[/i], [i]Jessica Jones[/i], [i]Cloak and Dagger[/i], and the beginning of [i]SHIELD[/i]. Kinda strange the way they spaced that all out, since they had plenty of material they could have reserved for fall and winter. Makes me wonder if they planned to "go dark" for a while after Endgame and before Disney+ drops, or if they had planned for more Netflix seasons and were just caught off-guard by the cancellations. They're certainly not pulling back on the TV side of things, since they have all of these Disney+ shows coming and just announced [i]Ghost Rider[/i] and [i]Helstrom[/i]. Just kinda weird that unless one of those Disney+ shows is farther along than we thought or we get a new season of [i]Runaways[/i] that they're leaving this void.
Posted July 4th
by white lancer
are any of those shows actually good? Luke cage has been a pretty cringey mess. Agents of shield got really weird with the season where they went into the future. Iron fist was shit. Punisher season 2 was bad. The only good show was daredevil and its 3rd season made up for how awful season 2 was.
Posted July 4th
They're certainly inconsistent. Most of the Netflix shows suffer from being a few episodes too long, which means they need to pad them out a bit. I'd qualify most of them as being good, but not great, with a few seasons (Daredevil S1 and 3, Jessica Jones S1, Punisher S1) as being actually great, and a few being pretty bad (Iron Fist S1, Defenders, Punisher S2). Iron Fist's second season was a big improvement on the first, which admittedly is a low bar, but still. Both of Luke's Cage's seasons land pretty solidly in the "fine" camp for me, as do the second and third seasons of Jessica Jones and the second season of Daredevil (that one struck me as much better on a rewatch--I think it stood out as bad at the time because it was a letdown from the previous Netflix stuff, but the Punisher stuff at least is truly excellent). I'm gonna have to disagree with you on SHIELD's season involving the future, as I thought that one was excellent (and only surpassed by its fourth season involving Ghost Rider and LMDs). I think Cloak and Dagger's first season was pretty good, with the second season being a little more inconsistent, and Runaways is fine but a bit too teen-soap opera for my tastes.
Posted July 4th
by white lancer
Ya know, I was pretty "meh" about Homecoming, but I actually really had a great time with Far From Home! There are still things about this version of Spider-Man I'm not super into, and they're very present in the film, but it's pretty clear to me that Tom Holland really carries the role well. I really do think that each actor in the mask did really well for the films they were in and what they were going for, but Holland just seems so earnest and happy to be there that it really just comes off.
I loved the Mysterio stuff. I'm not entirely sure why people are acting like the "reveal" was a big twist, or why we are expected to not talk about it because it's a spoiler. I mean, I know they *sometimes* deviate from the source material, but I can't really think of any character that they literally changed from long-time villain in the comics (and literally every piece of media) to sudden hero in the films. (Not counting characters whose source material arc involves going from villain to hero or anti-hero, a la Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch or the Punisher.) So it's been kinda silly to me the way everyone is acting like this was a big twist or the "reveal" was actually a "reveal" and not literally the plot that was reliably predictable from the moment they announced Mysterio was going to be in it. (Sometimes this "spoiler" hype machine drives me bonkers. I *really* don't think it's a spoiler to say that the long-time Spidey villain is a villain in the new Spider-Man movie, and I think we've all lost our minds if we think that is.)
But yeah, Jake Gyllenhaal was great. Loved him, and the way he played off of Holland. I loved the costume! I loved the visuals! It pretty much surpassed my expectations of what they would do with the character. And it was great.
I'm pretty down on Spider-Man love interests. (MJ isn't really much of a character in most Spider-Man stories, and Gwen was really never anything but a plot device to motivate Peter, though I did enjoy Emma Stone's take on her in the Amazing series.) Zendaya as a sort of dark, awkward teenage MJ is kinda great, though. (It's funny that I've never found MJ interesting in anything ever until last year's Spider-Man PS4 and then this year's Far From Home.) I thought she was funny, and had a kind of awkwardness that I think matched up well with Peter's. I thought Zendaya and Holland actually did well together, given that this romantic plot thread kinda just comes out of nowhere specifically for this film. Like I don't really think they planted those seeds very well in Homecoming. So it's kinda sudden and it just starts with him being like, "I really like her, man!" to Ned. I guess they had to outright say that because we had no reason going into the film to think that was the case. But I enjoyed them!
Really, I just thought it was a lot of fun. Not all the humor landed for me, but I do recognize that these Spider-Man movies tend to aim a little bit younger in terms of their target demographic. Thought it was visually cool. The action was good. To me, the character relationships felt a lot more organic, generally, than its predecessor. And, ya know, I was worried about it all taking place outside New York, but it worked out pretty well. Kinda enjoyed the road trip aspect of it in the end.
But...I kinda just can't get around the Tony Stark stuff. And so I guess I need to get into spoilers a bit. But it highlights some stuff about MCU Peter Parker that I don't tooootally love. Not necessarily saying it's bad, just that I'm not into it myself.
So, in a lot of ways, the basic plot of Far From Home is *literally* the same as Homecoming, right? Peter Parker, under the pressure of trying to please Tony Stark or live up to his standard, is forced to confront a villain that is ultimately of Stark's creation, in which Stark is mostly absent or non-communicative about, but that Peter has to go out of his way and get hurt, all because he feels the weight of responsibility that he didn't ask for but that Tony put on him. In Homecoming, he's obviously alive and can use his words to apply that pressure. In Far From Home, it's giving him access to Edith (which, boy, is that not a whoooole fucked up thread that I'll probably get into in a moment).
In some ways, these Spider-Man films feel to me like they're ultimately about the next generation having to clean up the messes of the previous generation.
Tony Stark isn't responsible for the choices made by Vulture or Mysterio and their people. They chose to commit crimes and acts of violence. That's not on Tony. However, Tony *did* actively create scenarios that led to that. It was his egotistical, monopolistic, greedy, narcissistic capitalistic attitudes that directly caused people to lose their jobs and feel desperate or humiliated. Even though Tony has *more* than enough money, and doesn't need to take credit for everything and/or use his position of wealth and status to garner exclusive government contracts to amass more wealth and status. So taken together, I can't help but think about how fucked up it kinda is that while every once in a while, we get some passing line about some organization Tony has donated to, in the end, he still constantly failed to do more day-to-day helpful things. That his desire to build an entire network of lethal drones that can strike anywhere in the world on a moment's notice outweighed his desire to, like, employ people or empower people who don't wear spandex costumes.
I really kinda came to hate Tony more than I already did, because once again seeing Peter have to clean up after Tony - especially seeing him start to crack under the impossible expectations he never asked for or signed up for - I just really came to find Tony Stark to be one of the least heroic heroes in the MCU. As a character, I like that he is flawed. Most of the best superheroes are. But the films don't really...approach the flaws or call them out as much as they probably should, or they just sweep it under the rug at the end so they get their big rah-rah hero moment.
The existence of Edith also kinda re-affirms my argument that Tony sucks. I mean, even after everything with Ultron, he *still* pushed forward with a massive drone program with lethal capabilities (uhh...what was that about getting out of the arms business, Tony?) And not only that, but he apparently had - for some time, at least - had access to violate everyone's privacy at his own personal leisure. In and of itself, that is fucked up and makes it even harder to retroactively ever really root for Stark in Civil War, but he also left that technology for a literal teenager to have. NEITHER of them should have that power. And it's never presented as a problem. There's like, one passing reference that implies that's messed up, but it's immediately interrupted and played more like a joke. So it's not even like the film itself ever questions the ethics of either of them having the ability to violate anyone's privacy.
And I dunno. It's just kinda that thing where I'm maybe just less into the fact that they built Spider-Man to be more influenced by Iron Man than Captain America. In the MCU, it kinda makes sense. But Tony is not really the guy someone like Peter should look up to, and historically in media, it wouldn't really be. I hope they get away from Peter as the next Iron Man thing (which they did in the comics for a little while and it was...not great... but I also understand the meta-commentary here in which with RDJ out, it's likely Spider-Man could become the flagship character going forward).
But I also kinda don't love it because it doesn't quite...land. I can appreciate that they're as sick of telling us the Uncle Ben story as we are hearing it. But Peter acting because he feels obligation to Tony rather than his uncle feels a bit off-character. Like so much of why the Uncle Ben story resonates is that Peter had a chance to stop the thief. There is a direct correlation between Peter's inaction and the death of his uncle. That's why he feels so much guilt and subsequently, responsibility. But the death of Tony...like, Peter wasn't even alive for most of Endgame. Peter had literally no role to play whatsoever in the fate of Tony, one way or the other. So the main reason he feels guilty for letting down Tony is that...Tony told him to be better than him? I'm not so sure there's much depth there, really.
I kinda feel similarly about the ending. I get that they're playing with the Iron Man theme here. Where Tony outed himself at the end of the first film, they decided to have Peter get outed by someone else against his will to push him more into Tony Stark territory. And I kinda get the inclination to go that route. Peter is one of the few heroes who is adamant about protecting their identity. It's a huge deal to have it get outed. But I feel like there's a much more powerful story to tell wherein he eventually decides to out himself. Like if they want him to basically function as the new version of Iron Man, then outing himself would be more thematically relevant. And if they wanted to stick more to his comic characterization, again, him choosing to out himself would be an even bigger deal (as it would also inevitably feed into his innate guilt complex - it's so much easier to buy the guilt when villains react to his choice to out himself than to act on Mysterio's actions. Like I know he'll still feel guilty because he's Spider-Man and that puts people in danger. But that's comparatively way more generic and boring than, say, feeling the weight of filling in for Iron Man and making the active choice to out himself like his mentor did).
Anyway. Kinda broader gripes that have less to do about the movie itself. And obviously, I looooved seeing JK Simmons again!
But yeah, all that said, I really did just have a lot of fun with it. Didn't love everything. But it's gotta be up there in the live action Spider-Man movies. I generally don't enjoy the stories that they appear to be building towards with the post-credits scene, but I think I'll see anything with Tom Holland at this point.
Posted July 19th
by Jet Presto
[quote]I'm pretty down on Spider-Man love interests. (MJ isn't really much of a character in most Spider-Man stories, and Gwen was really never anything but a plot device to motivate Peter, though I did enjoy Emma Stone's take on her in the Amazing series.) Zendaya as a sort of dark, awkward teenage MJ is kinda great, though. (It's funny that I've never found MJ interesting in anything ever until last year's Spider-Man PS4 and then this year's Far From Home.) I thought she was funny, and had a kind of awkwardness that I think matched up well with Peter's. I thought Zendaya and Holland actually did well together, given that this romantic plot thread kinda just comes out of nowhere specifically for this film. Like I don't really think they planted those seeds very well in Homecoming. So it's kinda sudden and it just starts with him being like, "I really like her, man!" to Ned. I guess they had to outright say that because we had no reason going into the film to think that was the case. But I enjoyed them![/quote]
Yeah, Zendaya really got short shrift in [i]Homecoming.[/i] I remember seeing her all over the advertising for that film, so I was surprised at how little she was used in the actual film (whereas the actual love interest of that one was a lot less prominent in ads). There were hints that she had a thing for Peter in [i]Homecoming[/i], but nothing close to explicit, and there wasn't really any indication that Peter had anything for her at all. They couldn't really lay much groundwork for Peter/Michelle in that film because they had committed to Liz (and there was definitely no room to explore Pete's love life in the Avengers films), so there wasn't much they could do to get us to the starting point of this movie unless they wanted to push the teen romance off until the next one. Given that, they were great together, and really believable. My pipe dream was that MCU Peter would somehow come in contact with Shuri (Holland and Wright seem like they would play off each other fantastically), but Zendaya's MJ is awesome enough in her own right and obviously far more realistic.
[hide]I do think the MCU is intentionally undermining at least some of Tony's heroism, particularly by using him as the source of a number of the series' villains. Adrian Toomes in particular was a great example of how Tony often overlooked and stomped on the little guy over the course of his everyday business, and he got smacked in the face with his culpability in Sokovia when Miriam Sharpe confronted him in [i]Civil War[/i]. That's one of the reasons I think he's such a good character. But you're right in that the MCU has probably been a bit [i]too[/i] subtle in its criticisms of Tony, such that your casual Marvel fan probably just sees him as the big hero. That's probably a result of his massive popularity driving Marvel to make him the de facto face of the MCU, so they don't really want to take too much of a shine off of him...but they do continue to do it in quieter ways, such as with Mysterio.
EDITH is a pretty disturbing thing to give to Peter Parker, I agree--even setting aside the question as to why Stark still has all those ridiculous drones, since his move away from weapon dealing was a huge point in [i]Iron Man[/i] and his move away from "privatizing world peace" was his arc in [i]Civil War[/i], why on earth would you give that absurd power to a teenager? As gifted as Peter is, you'd think that Stark would give this responsibility to Pepper (since she's, you know, technically still in charge of Stark Industries) or Rhodey, rather than dumping it on his teenaged protege. I'd have less of a problem with Stark leaving Peter some technological updates or something, but the ability to murder anyone, anywhere, with just a careless phrase? I read an essay shortly after that compared this to Batman's monitoring of cell phone technology in [i]The Dark Knight[/i], which the unambiguously heroic Lucius Fox instantly declared wrong--and that technology was simple surveillance, without the murderous possibilities. Sort of makes for a nice, unintentional meta commentary on how much we've gotten used to the idea of companies like Google and Facebook having our personal information in the past decade.
As I said, I [i]generally[/i] think the Tony/Peter connection has been a good one for both characters. There are definitely some hiccups, though, as you outlined. I think there is a sense of responsibility that Peter feels about Tony's death due to Tony (and Natasha and Steve) leaving something of a void in the Earth-bound heroes department, and I like that it gives Peter the tragedy angle that this incarnation never really had, but you're right that the Uncle Ben comparison is incomplete here. I'm not really sure what else they could do to satisfy that angle given that they didn't want to explore it in the films again, though. I do think it's something missing in this incarnation, though, and I got pretty annoyed when watching the Garfield series that its mere existence robbed the Holland version of having a proper Uncle Ben story. And yeah, it's interesting that Tony's a much worse match as a mentor for Peter Parker than Captain America would be--after all, if there's another MCU hero that could lift Thor's hammer, Peter's probably the best bet--but I don't think it disqualifies him. I like having him as Peter's benefactor--to a point, given that I don't want Peter to be overly defined by technology--and as a mentor figure who knows he's flawed but is trying to be better for the sake of his protege. That said, it would have been nice to see Peter have some meaningful interaction with Steve or T'Challa or another hero that is closer to his mentality. Apparently there was some chance that Sam Wilson would be making his debut as Captain America in this film, which would have been a great fit IMO.[/hide]
But yeah, I think the whole EDITH thing was the one big concern I had about the film. Everything else was pretty solid.
Posted July 26th
by white lancer
Given that, they were great together, and really believable. My pipe dream was that MCU Peter would somehow come in contact with Shuri (Holland and Wright seem like they would play off each other fantastically), but Zendaya's MJ is awesome enough in her own right and obviously far more realistic.
=Spider Man: HoMe WrEcKeR
Posted July 26th
Wait. Zendaya isn't Mary Jane?
Posted July 26th
by Jet Presto
I mean...kinda? They called her Michelle throughout [i]Homecoming[/i], which I guess was probably just their way of hiding that she was going to be the MCU's version of MJ (and to avoid distracting the audience from the Peter-Liz relationship, I suppose). She seems like basically a different character, with the name being merely an homage to the classic comic character, which I'm cool with. As you said, I didn't care at all about the Mary Jane character until I played through the Spider-Man PS4 game, as she was a pretty awful character in the Raimi films.
Posted July 30th
by white lancer
As you said, I didn't care at all about the Mary Jane character until I played through the Spider-Man PS4 game, as she was a pretty awful character in the Raimi films.
=I rewatched the first 2 movies this weekend. She is not that terrible. A little bit derpy sure but not that bad.
I found it interesting that in a span of 2 and a half years she bounced around 3 different relationships before settling for Peter. She almost married a guy too. I personally cant imagine getting married in less than a 2 year time frame of courtship. but this is neither here or there.
Posted July 30th
I think everyone was the right amount of camp for the Raimi films.
The thing I find really annoying about Zendaya as not "MJ" but as a new "MJ-equivalent" is I think that's a really shitty message to send. I'm a little sick of how frequently they just make up a new character when adapting or relaunching and they maybe want to change something like race, gender, or sexuality. I know, I know: annoying SJW alert: but I think it's annoying that they can't just cast a mixed-race actor in the classic character of Mary Jane Watson because - as the idiot gatekeeping nerds will rage - SHE'S ALWAYS BEEN WHITE IN THE COMICS! But so many of these characters, especially the white, secondary characters, race is literally irrelevant. Mary Jane doesn't *need* to be white. So I kinda just find it irritating that they can't just cast anyone in the role of Mary Jane Watson, a long-time, important character in Spider-Man lore. Instead, if they want to cast Zendaya, they have to make something up.
And yeah, Michelle is different in characterization than past versions of Mary Jane, but so what? They made her different in personality in the Ultimate Universe, but didn't feel the need to come up with a brand new character that is "MJ-adjacent" for that. She's different in the Raimi universe than in most of the comics. They literally changed her career and personality for the PS4 game.
It's kinda like, I don't really get why they have to keep creating new characters if they want to relaunch a series but change some aspect. They can't relaunch Spider-Man to have an mixed race Peter Parker; they have to create Miles Morales. And yeah, that worked, but I'm a little annoyed with the gatekeeping. I think it sucks essentially sending the message that only white people can be Peter Parker or Mary Jane.
Posted July 31st
by Jet Presto
Kinda think you're putting too much emphasis on the specific name here, tbh. As I said, it's more than likely they named her "Michelle Jones" in the MCU to a) preserve the surprise of her being MJ and b) not distract audiences from the Peter-Liz plot. I imagine a lot of people would have seen MJ in the film and figured that the Liz romance was doomed from the start, and thus not invested in it. But she [i]is[/i] the MCU's version of MJ--I mean, I don't think they call her anything else throughout [i]Far From Home[/i]. The representation factor of it--the fact that Peter Parker's girlfriend is African-American--matters way more than whether she's "Mary Jane" or "Michelle Jones" IMO. I also, like, don't see anything wrong with changing the name of a character when you change literally everything else about her--you effectively have created an entirely new character at that point and slapping an old name on her simply makes her that character in name only. It also comes with something of an unfortunate implication if you do that with a female character, because then you're sorta implying that she's entirely defined by the man she's dating and that all of her other characteristics are extraneous and interchangeable.
Posted August 2nd
by white lancer
I don't understand this obsession with making traditionally white characters black/ insert race here. I rather have a new character with said background.
But hey that's just me.
Posted August 3rd
They should of made peter Parker African American.
Posted August 3rd