Role reversing Mary Jane

[GregX]

When Mary Jane Watson was first introduced by Stan Lee and John Romita, she was a fun, hip, extroverted party girl. She just wanted to have a good time, and wasn't interested in committing to anyone. She was the "bad" girl in contrast to the wholesome good girl, Gwen Stacy.

When Gwen died, Peter Parker and Mary Jane's innocence died with her. Both of them matured, and over time became stronger people. We learned that behind Mary Jane's party girl facade was a woman escaping from her own inner demons. Eventually, she and Peter committed, then broke up, then committed, proposed, broke up, proposed again, were married, sold their marriage to the devil. You get the idea.

Now, let's look at how Mary Jane was adapted across the various adaptations of Spider-Man.

Mary Jane debuted in the 1990's series, in a manner similar to her first appearance in the comics. "Face it tiger, you just hit the jackpot." But, the similarities between her and when Stan and John created her end there. This Mary Jane was the good girl, who wanted to be in a relationship with Peter. Felicia Hardy flirted with Peter, but wouldn't commit to him. Mary Jane was role reversed. She was given Gwen Stacy's personality, while Felicia was the spicier of the two woman. Eventually, Mary Jane even fell off a bridge (and into a dimensional portal) in a battle with the Green Goblin... a fate that belonged to Gwen Stacy (minus the portal). She never returned, but a trend began.

Mary Jane's next significant appearance was in the Spider-Man movies, where she was played by Kirsten Dunst. In this adaption, Mary Jane was the girl Peter loved since the second grade, but from afar. Mary Jane wasn't a party girl, and wanted a stable relationship. First from Harry, then from peter, then from John Jameson, before finally ending up with Peter. But, once again, she was given Gwen Stacy's personality.

Then, when "Spider-Man 3" hit, Gwen Stacy appeared in the movie, and ironically, she had a lot more in common with Stan and John's Mary Jane Watson than the Mary Jane of the movies did. The two of them were role reversed. This is even funnier when you realize that in real life, Kirsten Dunst is blond and Bryce Dallas Howard is a redhead.

While this was all going on, "Ultimate Spider-Man" was on the shelves, and Mary Jane was the shy science geek and book worm, and Gwen Stacy the cool, extrovert. The irony is now so thick, you could eat it with a spoon.

Then "The Spectacular Spider-Man" hit the airwaves, and Mary Jane did not show up until the end of episode six, prompting many to wonder where she was, and almost as many to fear she would not be in the series. Of course, to the fans familiar with the comics, they knew exactly what was going on. Mary Jane debuted with her infamous "Face it tiger, you just hit the jackpot" straight out of Stan and John's comics. But, unlike the 90's cartoon, the similarities did NOT end there for once.

Spectacular's Mary Jane was the party girl who did not want to be tied down with anyone, who went on a date with Peter, and stayed friends with him before briefly dating Flash Thompson and ending it when he began to get too attached. Many fans who were unfamiliar with the Mary Jane of the comic books were not happy about this. In the second season, Mary Jane got involved in a tragic romance with Mark Allen, thinking it would be a casual thing, and then all of a sudden being in a relationship. Unfortunately, the series ended shortly afterward, but it gave us a glimpse of where Mary Jane was going to go.

The next series is "Ultimate Spider-Man" and, if it's anything like it's namesake, we will continue to see the role reversal of Mary Jane Watson in the media perpetuated.

Thoughts?

[carnage89]

Yeah I dont understand why they always give MJ Gwen's personality, since this takes away her character strenght. I mean it's hard not to fall for the bad girl, and they keep making her the good one.

[Anwar]

I may not agree with it, but I can understand the role-reversal. Most of the writers are likely under the assumption that they'd never get away with the death of Gwen in a show and would be wanting to get to the Peter/MJ pairing that (was) the major relationship in Spider-Man. Thus to bypass it they just make her a Gwen Expy and go straight for that.

Movies, well movies are a different animal than TV shows and cartoons. If they did the whole love progression there with Peter being with a different girl every movie without much time between them the producers may be afraid he'd come off as a man-slut.

[W.C.Reaf]

Mary Jane's next significant appearance was in the Spider-Man movies, where she was played by Kirsten Dunst. In this adaption, Mary Jane was the girl Peter loved since the second grade, but from afar. Mary Jane wasn't a party girl, and wanted a stable relationship. First from Harry, then from peter, then from John Jameson, before finally ending up with Peter. But, once again, she was given Gwen Stacy's personality.

Then, when "Spider-Man 3" hit, Gwen Stacy appeared in the movie, and ironically, she had a lot more in common with Stan and John's Mary Jane Watson than the Mary Jane of the movies did. The two of them were role reversed. This is even funnier when you realize that in real life, Kirsten Dunst is blond and Bryce Dallas Howard is a redhead.

I laugh whenever I think about this. I'm not sure why they didn't just have Gwen in the first movie instead of MJ, it would've made the bridge scene a lot more powerful and had a lot of Spidey fans on the edge of their seats.

Hopefully the new movies will be better.


While this was all going on, "Ultimate Spider-Man" was on the shelves, and Mary Jane was the shy science geek and book worm, and Gwen Stacy the cool, extrovert. The irony is now so thick, you could eat it with a spoon.

Not to mention they had a bridge death fake out with MJ, and not Gwen, in the fourth arc. Do you think Bendis actually realises what he did and that was a reference to it?


The next series is "Ultimate Spider-Man" and, if it's anything like it's namesake, we will continue to see the role reversal of Mary Jane Watson in the media perpetuated.

We'll have to wait and see. We don't know how much this'll be based on Ultimate and how much would be doing its own thing.

[Jon T]

Mary Jane debuted in the 1990's series

There was a Mary Jane that appeared in one episode of the 1967 series, although she was said to be Captain Stacy's niece. An obvious shortcut amalgamating the two main female characters in the contemporary comics, this Mary Jane was, in her brief appearance, simply depicted as a fun-loving, somewhat flighty character. Not a million miles away from the actual Mary Jane of the time.


When Gwen died, Peter Parker and Mary Jane's innocence died with her. Both of them matured, and over time became stronger people. We learned that behind Mary Jane's party girl facade was a woman escaping from her own inner demons. Eventually, she and Peter committed, then broke up, then committed, proposed, broke up, proposed again, were married, sold their marriage to the devil. You get the idea.

I think those changes in Mary Jane's personality back in the post-1973 comics, along with the fact that in those pre-Ultimate days no producers wanted to bring back a character long-deceased in the comics, were the main reasons as to why Gwen's personality traits were transposed onto Mary Jane's depictions in most other media.

Come Spider-Man 3, and Ultimate Spider-Man having established itself for several years by that point, the reintroduction of Gwen, as a main character, to a mainstream Spider-Man story was not seen as a problem. With Mary Jane's personality already having been established in the first two films, the only way they could go with Gwen was to ironically make her more like the Mary Jane of the 1960s/1970s comics.

Measured against those original comics it's a clear role reversal, but when the 1990s Spider-Man series, the first movie, and Ultimate Spider-Man are measured against the contemporary comics of the 1990s/2000s, the delineation is less clear, better reflecting the latter-day depictions of a slightly more emotionally stable Mary Jane.

[Spideyzilla]

I agree with the versions from TSSM and of course, the comics. It was more interesting to see MJ grow up, in my opinion. I don't know why they've reversed her role so much, it destroys her character.

[Spider-Friends]

It's all done with short-sightedness. Mary Jane of the comics was not intended to become the love of Peter Parker's life. She grew into that. And the length of time that took would be hard to convey in shorter adaptations.

When Mary Jane was thought of as "Spider-Man's wife", especially when the first movie and the 90's series came out, the makers of these felt the need to get the audience to like her. I agree that she had "Gwen's personality" in those two adaptations, but only because what we are associating with "Gwen's personality" are the same things that we associate with all people that we see as a "good mate". Gwen was sweet, caring, and unopinionated. She was basically BLAND so that no one could be offended by her and, in turn, be attractive to a mass audience.

[A.Magik]

When Mary Jane was thought of as "Spider-Man's wife", especially when the first movie and the 90's series came out, the makers of these felt the need to get the audience to like her. I agree that she had "Gwen's personality" in those two adaptations, but only because what we are associating with "Gwen's personality" are the same things that we associate with all people that we see as a "good mate". Gwen was sweet, caring, and unopinionated. She was basically BLAND so that no one could be offended by her and, in turn, be attractive to a mass audience.Well, Gwen wasn't always like that...

In the Lee-Ditko years, she came off as a flirting gal with a widow's peak interested in Peter and getting really PO'd when Peter ignored her. At one point she practially slapped Peter (who blocked it).
When the Lee-Romita era began, Gwen still kept some semblance to her characterization. One big example is a party where Mary Jane dances & gets the boys' attention. Then Gwen enters the dance floor and steals their attention, with MJ sulking. Bryce Howard's performance was based on this characterization, and Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale also fretured it in their Spider-Man: Blue series, but that brings up a major problem that explained the change in Gwen's character: she and MJ were too much alike! (perhaps that explains things in SM3). So Gwen became the Daddy's Girl-next-door, losing the widow's peak and getting bangs. Still, there were moments that showed that Gwen was hardly the passive type: when a campus protestor criticizes Peter for cowardice, Gwen slaps him silly. And shortly before her death, when Aunt May weeps about her 'poor boy Peter,' Gwen angrily hollers at the old woman, telling her that Peter is a grown man!

[Arsenal]

I think the reason Mary Jane is often turned into de facto Gwen is because creators don't want to use a character that everyone will assume dies. The moment Gwen appears on screen, comic book fans hear a ticking clock that counts down to her (seemingly) inevitable death.

So creators want a good girl for Peter to date and a bad girl for him to flirt with. Mary Jane (the woman who was later retrofitted as the wife and Peter's chosen one) is cast as the good girl. In the case of the 90's show, Felicia was refitted as the bad girl.

Spectacular Spider-Man made the interesting (and I would say successful) decision of ignoring Gwen's ticking clock. There are no sincere teases that she is going to die. Sure, she's put in peril; but no more so than any other hero's love interest.

It's as if Weisman said, "She's here, she's not dying, and she's the good girl."

Then, TSSM took an additional step and made Liz Allen the bad girl. Perhaps, they thought the MJ/Gwen competition would be too obvious. Maybe, the creators decided they'd rather have MJ and Gwen as friends, as opposed to romantic rivals. Then again, they could have just been saving MJ-Peter for later seasons.

Either way, with Gwen re-established as the good girl, MJ was free to return to her roots as party girl.

Personally, I love the way TSSM handled it. MJ as an unnatural MJ/Gwen hybrid bores me. Then again, if Ultimate Spider-Man uses Gwen and MJ in the exact same way, we'll all just yawn and say "TSSM already did it."

[GregX]

Well, Greg had no plans to kill Gwen in the show, at all. The direct to DVD movies he was hoping for, on the other hand...

As for Mary Jane, I think it's safe to say that she was going to develop and become the woman who would eventually be Peter Parker's wife. She was just beginning it when the show got canceled. Greg loves his long character arcs.

So, why not have character arcs like that. Why does "the one" need to be introduced and advertised as "the one" from the pilot? Why not have her grow into "the one" over a long period of time? That's what Spectacular was doing. Gwen Stacy is the first great love of Peter's life, but not the last.

Of course, in private, I have referred to the character in the 90's cartoon, Ultimate, and the movies as "Mary Gwen Watson."

[TheVileOne]

The way I see it the 90's animated series and the movies were made after decades of continuity and changes had taken place.

Face it guys, Mary Jane stopped being the spicy flirty party girl a LONG FREAKING TIME AGO. Also like it or not, Mary Jane and Peter were married in our time for over twenty years. And generally they were a good couple with like any married couple some rough patches and bumps in the road.

Mary Jane for years had developed into something more than the flirty party girl. The movies and animated show simply took some of that into account. Plus the fact that Mary Jane was the girl Peter ended up with and married.

Felicia was different in the animated series because she was this super rich high class high maintenance girl. She wasn't a party girl type.

[AlgeaX]

Face it guys, Mary Jane stopped being the spicy flirty party girl a LONG FREAKING TIME AGO. Also like it or not, Mary Jane and Peter were married in our time for over twenty years. And generally they were a good couple with like any married couple some rough patches and bumps in the road.

Mary Jane for years had developed into something more than the flirty party girl. The movies and animated show simply took some of that into account. Plus the fact that Mary Jane was the girl Peter ended up with and married.

I totally agree that comic book MJ grew a lot over the years but it was interesting watching her develop into the mature, responsible woman who would become Mrs. Spider-Man.

Problem with stuff like the movies is that they try to presenter her as Peter's ready made One True Love from day one, no character development required. I'm much more interested in seeing how she gets to that point.

[ABrown]

Mary Jane debuted in the 1990's series

Mary Jane's next significant appearance was in the Spider-Man movies

While this was all going on, "Ultimate Spider-Man" was on the shelves

Then "The Spectacular Spider-Man" hit the airwaves, and Mary Jane did not show up until the end of episode six

Don't forget the MTV Mainframe series version of her.

[Peter Paltridge]

The way I see it the 90's animated series and the movies were made after decades of continuity and changes had taken place.

Face it guys, Mary Jane stopped being the spicy flirty party girl a LONG FREAKING TIME AGO. Also like it or not, Mary Jane and Peter were married in our time for over twenty years. And generally they were a good couple with like any married couple some rough patches and bumps in the road.

Mary Jane for years had developed into something more than the flirty party girl. The movies and animated show simply took some of that into account. Plus the fact that Mary Jane was the girl Peter ended up with and married.

Felicia was different in the animated series because she was this super rich high class high maintenance girl. She wasn't a party girl type.
This.

Whenever people complain about the media not focusing on Gwen very much, I think it makes just as much sense to complain that Lyman wasn't in the Garfield movie. When characters are introduced, they don't always resemble the characters they become. MJ was a much deeper, much more complex, much more HUMAN person by the 1990's and that is the version I like.

[Gokou Ruri]

Whenever people complain about the media not focusing on Gwen very much, I think it makes just as much sense to complain that Lyman wasn't in the Garfield movie. When characters are introduced, they don't always resemble the characters they become. MJ was a much deeper, much more complex, much more HUMAN person by the 1990's and that is the version I like. Pretty much.

I hope they do use the Ultimate version of the characters in USM (MJ, Gwen, and so forth); I assume they will since it's appropriately titled, but you never know.

[GregX]

This.

Whenever people complain about the media not focusing on Gwen very much, I think it makes just as much sense to complain that Lyman wasn't in the Garfield movie. When characters are introduced, they don't always resemble the characters they become. MJ was a much deeper, much more complex, much more HUMAN person by the 1990's and that is the version I like.

But when you do this, you lose character arcs. Why should a character start at the end of their arc in an adaption? Shouldn't we see them grow into that person throughout the show?

And comparing Gwen Stacy to Lyman is like comparing apples and steam engines.

[AlgeaX]

This.

Whenever people complain about the media not focusing on Gwen very much, I think it makes just as much sense to complain that Lyman wasn't in the Garfield movie. When characters are introduced, they don't always resemble the characters they become. MJ was a much deeper, much more complex, much more HUMAN person by the 1990's and that is the version I like.

I don't think you can do a proper Spider-Man without acknowledging Gwen in some way. Too much of Spidey's history and Mythos revolve around her life and death, from his relationships with MJ, Harry and Norman to his whole character development over the decades.

Even beyond her role in Spidey's little corner of the Marvel universe, her death is considered one of the most pivotal events in comicbook history, some even going so far as to mark it as the official end of the Silver Age of Comics. In her own way Gwen is almost as iconic in comic book circles as Spidey himself.

[GregX]

I don't think you can do a proper Spider-Man without acknowledging Gwen in some way. Too much of Spidey's history and Mythos revolve around her life and death, from his relationships with MJ, Harry and Norman to his whole character development over the decades.

Even beyond her role in Spidey's little corner of the Marvel universe, her death is considered one of the most pivotal events in comicbook history, some even going so far as to mark it as the official end of the Silver Age of Comics. In her own way Gwen is almost as iconic in comic book circles as Spidey himself.

Sometimes, when I read threads like this, I get the feeling that some people don't like character arcs in cartoons.

[stephane dumas]

We can also mention, even if Mary-Jane didn't appeared in the Spider-man & his Amazing friends" series, one of Spidey friends' Angelica Jones aka Firestar have a hairstyle similar to MJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Firestar_Angelica.jpg

And a slighty off-topic note , the Spider-man newspaper comic strip sill distributed in some newspapers. Pete and MJ are still married.

[W.C.Reaf]

The way I see it the 90's animated series and the movies were made after decades of continuity and changes had taken place.

Face it guys, Mary Jane stopped being the spicy flirty party girl a LONG FREAKING TIME AGO. Also like it or not, Mary Jane and Peter were married in our time for over twenty years. And generally they were a good couple with like any married couple some rough patches and bumps in the road.

Mary Jane for years had developed into something more than the flirty party girl. The movies and animated show simply took some of that into account. Plus the fact that Mary Jane was the girl Peter ended up with and married.

But why can't these movies and cartoons take this developed character and start from the beginning of her life and go to where she is now. Why does she have to start where she is now in the comics when they're making stuff that is set at the beginning?


I hope they do use the Ultimate version of the characters in USM (MJ, Gwen, and so forth); I assume they will since it's appropriately titled, but you never know.

I'd like to see them do Ult Gwen since I liked her a lot and it was great seeing her character arc unfold. Well till she was randomly killed by Carnage for no good reason other than it happened in 616 so it should happen here. :rolleyes:


Sometimes, when I read threads like this, I get the feeling that some people don't like character arcs in cartoons.

Same here. Whenever anyone refers to character episodes as "filler" I roll my eyes and wonder if I'm the only one who actually likes character development.

[Gokou Ruri]

But why can't these movies and cartoons take this developed character and start from the beginning of her life and go to where she is now. Why does she have to start where she is now in the comics when they're making stuff that is set at the beginning? Why introduce MJ at all when Peter's still in high school when she didn't show up until he was an adult? People expected her there. That's usually how it goes with comic book adaptions.

Plus if you try to drag things out, you tend to get cancelled before anything comes out of it. 50+ years of comic continuity doesn't translate well to TV.

[JTMarsh]

Why introduce MJ at all when Peter's still in high school when she didn't show up until he was an adult? People expected her there. That's usually how it goes with comic book adaptions.

Plus if you try to drag things out, you tend to get cancelled before anything comes out of it. 50+ years of comic continuity doesn't translate well to TV.
I was just about to say: cartoons typically only have half the life span, if even that, of a live action show, which makes the serialized writing all the more difficult to pull off. Some cartoons are lucky to get 2 seasons, some wash out after only one. Not every animated series gets to run on forever like the Simpsons (which will probably continue long after all the voice actors have died).

[GregX]

I was just about to say: cartoons typically only have half the life span, if even that, of a live action show, which makes the serialized writing all the more difficult to pull off. Some cartoons are lucky to get 2 seasons, some wash out after only one. Not every animated series gets to run on forever like the Simpsons (which will probably continue long after all the voice actors have died).

And I think it's worth trying. I'd much rather have a show take a chance to do something great, instead of simply play itself and remain mediocre in case it gets canceled too soon.

[JTMarsh]

And I think it's worth trying. I'd much rather have a show take a chance to do something great, instead of simply play itself and remain mediocre in case it gets canceled too soon.
Don't get me wrong, I want greatness in my cartoons, but it gets very frustrating to see these well written and highly serialized shows get cut down in their prime.

[Pepperidge]

Why introduce MJ at all when Peter's still in high school when she didn't show up until he was an adult? People expected her there. That's usually how it goes with comic book adaptions.

Plus if you try to drag things out, you tend to get cancelled before anything comes out of it. 50+ years of comic continuity doesn't translate well to TV.
I do have to agree with Marinite on this one. As well-characterized as MJ was in TSSM and as hard as they tried to make her relevant to the storyline and development of several characters, it just wasn't necessary for her to be there. At all. If she were to be removed from the entirety of the series, any void left behind could simply be filled by another character or different circumstance. I would imagine that the only reason she appeared that early in the story is because the majority people are so used to seeing her in every iteration of Spider-Man that they'd be confused by her absence.

It's a shame, since it would have been much more fun to see them constantly tease about her existence for the first two seasons, only to finally introduce her in the third or fourth.

[GregX]

I do have to agree with Marinite on this one. As well-characterized as MJ was in TSSM and as hard as they tried to make her relevant to the storyline and development of several characters, it just wasn't necessary for her to be there. At all. If she were to be removed from the entirety of the series, any void left behind could simply be filled by another character or different circumstance. I would imagine that the only reason she appeared that early in the story is because the majority people are so used to seeing her in every iteration of Spider-Man that they'd be confused by her absence.

It's a shame, since it would have been much more fun to see them constantly tease about her existence for the first two seasons, only to finally introduce her in the third or fourth.

Well, again, she was at the beginning of her character arc. And she was there because Weisman wanted her there, not because she was forced on him. And, especially if you listen to his recent interview with Spectacular Webs, he makes it very clear that he had plans for her... not to mention how deep he delved into the psychology of the characters.

Besides, again, I'd rather a show attempt greatness even if it gets cut short. Imagine if it ended at season one before we knew the truth about the Green Goblin... the risk they took was worth it.

Most shows strive for adequacy and achieve mediocrity. I don't watch those shows. ;)

[TheVileOne]

But why can't these movies and cartoons take this developed character and start from the beginning of her life and go to where she is now. Why does she have to start where she is now in the comics when they're making stuff that is set at the beginning?

They do if you pay attention. For starters comics have years and tons of issues to do all this. The movies and TV shows don't have that kind of time. A movie has maybe two hours.

Watch the Spider-man movie again. At the start, Mary Jane is the hot popular chick with the in-crowd in high school. To Peter she's unattainable even though she lives right next door to him. She dates the class jock and physical alpha male/golden boy. Peter can barely work up the spine to talk to her.

A movie has a short set amount of time to develop these characters. Comics take years and years to do what movies basically only have minutes to do. You can't stuff 5, 10, 20 years of development into one or even two movies.



And I think it's worth trying. I'd much rather have a show take a chance to do something great, instead of simply play itself and remain mediocre in case it gets canceled too soon.


I feel your ideas of what greatness are and can be IMHO are very subjective.

I think this boils down to the hardcore SSM fans being all well the 1990's show didn't have Gwen Stacy as Peter's original OTP so SSM is automatically better.

If we are going to be that purist, we should also be upset Peter wasn't romancing Betty Brant at first in SSM. So Weisman and company truly did not achieve and accomplish greatness.

[Pepperidge]

Besides, again, I'd rather a show attempt greatness even if it gets cut short. Imagine if it ended at season one before we knew the truth about the Green Goblin... the risk they took was worth it.

But does that not prove my point? Wouldn't it have been just as risky and daring for them to do something like delay the entrance of a major character until a later season? Imagine the payoff! It definitely would've left more of an impression than only waiting six episodes.

[Ed Liu]

But when you do this, you lose character arcs. Why should a character start at the end of their arc in an adaption? Shouldn't we see them grow into that person throughout the show?
I think my issue with this statement is that you're using the comic books as the standard for the "character arc" that a character has to follow. It doesn't have to be. Your complaint hinges on the fact that most Spider-Man adaptations don't follow the character arc for Mary Jane Watson from the comics, but while that's the one that's been around the longest, it's not the only possible arc or the only good one that can involve a character named "Mary Jane Watson." That's really the issue here: the "Mary Jane Watson" of most of the movies and the TV shows shares a name and a physical appearance with the "Mary Jane Watson" of the comic books, but they're not the same character. It is ironic that Mary Jane mostly fills in the Gwen Stacy role from the comics, but that's just a coincidence.

They may look like the same character and share a name and an basic origin story, but Peter Parker or Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne have always gotten slightly different versions of themselves in all their incarnations, live-action or animated. Sometimes it's a big, drastic change (Adam West vs. BTAS vs. Brave & the Bold, or Robert Downey Jr. vs. Iron Man: Armored Adventures), and sometimes it's not so huge (most versions of Peter Parker). Mary Jane isn't really any different in that regard. Her changes may be far more visible, but as a supporting character, I think her role is also far more open to alternate interpretations.

How much you keep and how much you ditch from what's come before is always one of those tricky things in going from comics to TV shows or films (or, for that matter, if you're picking up a long-established property in the comics). Superheroes seem to be the only characters where this sort of continual reinterpretation is the norm, since in other publishing endeavors, creators retain control over their creations, and most of those creations don't have continuous, on-going adventures. The ones that have are characters like Conan or James Bond, and to a far lesser extent someone like Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes, but there aren't that many others.


If we are going to be that purist, we should also be upset Peter wasn't romancing Betty Brant at first in SSM.
They kinda did that, though, with Pete having an obvious crush on her early on and attempting to ask her out. It was kind of a compressed sideways look at what Stan & Steve did in those comic book stories, where Peter and Betty did date for a while. If I remember right, Betty turned him down at first, too.

[TheVileOne]

Far too often do Gwen fanatics overlook that Betty Brant was Peter Parker's first love and also believe that Gwen was Peter's one true love.

The fact is that Gwen Stacy was a cruel, selfish, and horrible woman of dubious integrity. She had an affair with Norman Osborn because he had some sort of irresistable magnetism while in a committed relationship with Peter. Got pregnant and had twins by Norman Osborn and didn't tell Peter about it, and then expected Peter to help her and take care of her.

[Peter Paltridge]

The fact is that Gwen Stacy was a cruel, selfish, and horrible woman of dubious integrity. She had an affair with Norman Osborn because he had some sort of irresistable magnetism while in a committed relationship with Peter. Got pregnant and had twins by Norman Osborn and didn't tell Peter about it, and then expected Peter to help her and take care of her.
Don't hold an idea that horrible to continuity. JMS only wrote it because he thought he'd be able to take it back. It'll either be ignored or retconned outright.

[Ed Liu]

The fact is that Gwen Stacy was a cruel, selfish, and horrible woman of dubious integrity. She had an affair with Norman Osborn because he had some sort of irresistable magnetism while in a committed relationship with Peter. Got pregnant and had twins by Norman Osborn and didn't tell Peter about it, and then expected Peter to help her and take care of her.
Only if you accept what JMS wrote in the "Sins Past" comic book arc. Personally, I thought that was such a wildly out-of-character thing for Gwen to do that it hit the "this is a different character with the same name" effect I describe above, except within the same continuity. In other words, that's a character named "Gwen Stacy," but it's not the same Gwen Stacy that Stan Lee or Gerry Conway ever wrote.

FWIW, JMS is on the record as saying he was going to undo "Sins Past" (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=141756) before he handed over the reins of the title, and things didn't work out the way he wanted to. So technically, that version of Gwen was an accident and one he didn't plan on leaving that way.

[TheVileOne]

Only if you accept what JMS wrote in the "Sins Past" comic book arc. Personally, I thought that was such a wildly out-of-character thing for Gwen to do that it hit the "this is a different character with the same name" effect I describe above, except within the same continuity. In other words, that's a character named "Gwen Stacy," but it's not the same Gwen Stacy that Stan Lee or Gerry Conway ever wrote.

And yet it is :evil: . Just like Peter Parker is the same guy that punched his wife. Hank Pym beat Jan. Scarlett Witch went crazy and killed all her friends.


FWIW, JMS is on the record as saying he was going to undo "Sins Past" (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=141756) before he handed over the reins of the title, and things didn't work out the way he wanted to. So technically, that version of Gwen was an accident and one he didn't plan on leaving that way.

I've heard all this before. And honestly it's worthless to me. To me that's JMS' attempt at an olive branch or earn back the trust and respect of fans and readers whom he disgusted and betrayed. None of that really excuses or takes back that all of that happened.

None of the accident or didn't plan on leaving it that way doesn't work for me. Because it still happened. To me it's even worse that JMS thought he could write it and then take it back and get away with it. That's the definition of hack writing to me.

Honestly, I'm not going to go easy on writers and editorial since they wanted to do this BOLD DARING AND DRAMATIC story. So obviously they wanted to incite a strong reaction. I'm merely following through with it.

Why should I ignore what took place in the story? I'm not going to ignore it because other fans tell me I should. I also will not ignore it because JMS says, "Well that's not exactly the direction I wanted to go. And I wanted to take it all back but they wouldn't let me." That's pitiful in my opinion. Because Marvel and JMS opened Pandora's box, and I'm simply acknowledging what took place.

And I'm not sure why I should think of Gwen Stacy any other way. Quite frankly, Peter should've gotten over her already and taken her off her pedestal. It's a pedestal built on lies, just like the image that Tenchi Masaki had built up of his late mother. It's an image that wasn't real. Just like Peter's image of Gwen was also false.



Don't hold an idea that horrible to continuity. JMS only wrote it because he thought he'd be able to take it back. It'll either be ignored or retconned outright.


It's been several years and I don't see any retcons in sight. They retconned the marriage though.

I think the example with Gwen Stacy is that these character arcs built up over decades when it comes to alternative adaptations in movies and TV shows are not all they are cracked up to be. When you are dealing with decades of history, things will be picked and choosed. Other ideas will be weeded out. I don't think this makes the 90's Spider-man series inferior. I think the 90's show is very much a product of its time. It's flawed I agree. The animation isn't that great, but for what it's worth I think it's a solid and honest attempt at doing a great ongoing serialized animated Spider-man series.

[Antiyonder]

If we are going to be that purist, we should also be upset Peter wasn't romancing Betty Brant at first in SSM. So Weisman and company truly did not achieve and accomplish greatness.

Wanting the comics to be faithful doesn't mean we want it to copycat the source material 100%. There are ways to be faithful and still put a spin on said story.

[TheVileOne]

Wanting the comics to be faithful doesn't mean we want it to copycat the source material 100%. There are ways to be faithful and still put a spin on said story.

And as I already pointed out, to be truly faithful, Gwen Stacy should be a most loathsome, selfish, cruel and horrible type of woman ;) .

[GregX]

And as I already pointed out, to be truly faithful, Gwen Stacy should be a most loathsome, selfish, cruel and horrible type of woman ;) .

You know, whenever I read statements like this, I can't help but wonder just how far past the days of "The Scarlet Letter" we truly are.

Gwen made a mistake. I know people who have made far worse mistakes than she did, btw. And Peter forgave her. End of story.

[James Harvey]

On request of the thread creator, this thread is now closed.