Discussion Characters / SpiderManTrilogy

So, the first thing here is we need to decide if the Character Development entries are accurate.

Peter inarguably has development. That said, the entry is somewhat rambling, violates Example Indentation, and jumps around between movies to essentially say what can be boiled down to "goes from shy and somewhat self-centered to becoming confident and a true hero."

MJ's entry feels... like it's ascribing more meaning to her actions and feels like it's projecting development onto a fairly flat character. "She dates someone. Then she dated someone else. Then she dates someone else. I suspect this is why even though why MJ started dating these people is never stated and they're very different characters. It also feels... weird to claim that her agency is reclaimed by "doing the same thing she did in the first movie, but this time it's reciprocated." Like, her motivations aren't really delved into and it comes across as conjecture. She doesn't come across as "developing" so much as "finding the right guy and him reciprocating."

• While Maguire's Peter does seem to have changed a bit as a character over the course of the series, it isn't massively so, and these changes are rather subtle and insignificant compared to most depictions of a character's Character Development. For starters, Maguire's Peter is considerably more meek and mild-mannered than virtually all versions of the web-slinger. While certainly a beloved iteration, he comes across as somewhat insipid compared to his later cinematic counterparts, who possess more buoyancy and character traits in abundance. The key word here is traits. Maguire's Parker is, save from the notable exception where his ego took a massive boost in Spider-Man 3 as a result of the Venom symbiote's corrupting influence, almost always an awkward stick in the mud who doesn't grow out of it from his duties as Spider-Man and doesn't really develop much self-confidence to be able to stand up for himself from the looks of his relationships with Harry Osborn and J. Jonah Jameson. And even his change in behaviour in 3 is just a textbook case of Jerkass Ball, after which when he relinquishes his hold on it, he reverts back to the mild-mannered, unassuming Peter Parker.
• In MJ's case, she has almost no tangible personality in the first 2 films save for her being a Nice Girl, and even when her character actually took a turn sharing the spotlight with Peter in the third film, which genuinely makes efforts to explore the nuances of their relationship, that gets thrown right out the window after she breaks up with him.

Yeah, we really don't need 3 paragraphs of Character Development for Peter. He develops, but tonnes of that stuff is way too subtle to be notable.

Agreed. And Static Character, which is already present in his folder, better describes him. I do think that MJ's Character Development write-up should remain, though, along with her Flat Character write-up, since once again her character arc is integral to how she eventually gets together with Peter but is irrelevant to her character traits, of which the only really stand-out one is her status as a Nice Girl.

We're not comparing Peter to other incarnations of him in other media. We're comparing him to himself in this work.

And I think part of your problem is you're conflating "character arc" with "personality shift." Symbiote-notwithstanding, Peter's personality doesn't really do a massive shift. But his actions and relationship with his responsibilities does. He begins the first movie only worried about getting the girl and primarily concerned about that. By the end of the movie he realizes he has actual responsibilities and in fact turns down the girl due to accepting that. You have to ask yourself: Would Peter from the beginning of the movie have left MJ for her own good? Would Peter from the beginning of the movie have accepted Sandman's apology?

MJ's development is less prominent than Peter, but it's still there. She's certainly not flat. I feel like Flat Character is being misused for "not super interesting personality", which is just incorrect.

That's true; Flat Character can often be mistakenly interchanged with a "boring character", but that's not the case with MJ. She has almost no character traits aside from being a Nice Girl. That's it, really, that's her characterisation. Yes, she has her own arc of learning to accept herself and indulge her heart's desires, but that does nothing to expand on her character. So, naturally, she remains a bit flat. Same for Peter, who is almost always depicted as an awkward stick in the mud, i.e. Socially Awkward Hero. So ultimately, I believe that Peter and MJ's Flat Character write-ups should remain, along with MJ's Character Development, as that's crucial to how she grows in her relationship with Peter, since she is the Love Interest after all.

I feel her arc of struggling as an actress and her internal conflict with Peter being Spider-Man is enough depth to not be considered flat.

So we're agreed then? Only Peter's Character Development write-up should stay removed?

Peter did develop, that's just a fact. Even if it's minor. I agreed it should get trimmed but not removed.

And I meant MJ is not a Flat Character, even if she's boring.

Let's get the definition of a Flat Character straight.

A flat character is one that has only the bare minimum of characteristics necessary to play their role in the story.

What is MJ's primary role in the trilogy? To act as a Love Interest to Peter. Okay, how is she able to act as one towards him? Because she's a Nice Girl... And that's it. Those are the bare minimum of characteristics that she has which enable her to function in the story.

So a couple things. Please tell me how she develops. She changes jobs and she changes boyfriends but I don't see character development, just a character being in a different situation. I don't see how she's changed, I see how her situation changed.

In terms of not being flat, I could see an argument that the first movie had her somewhat rounded as it at least alludes to her having a poor homelife and troubles about being poor but that gets dropped pretty quickly and is listed as an Aborted Arc.

Also, I took this as a granted given the edit reasons but... where does it say Flat Character and Character Development are mutually exclusive? Closest I can find is that Flat Character claims that Character Development can be a way to "fix" a Flat Character (fix in quotes since the page goes out of its way to say that a flat character isn't inherently a bad thing) but given the current edit war was predicated on them being mutually exclusive, I'd like to know where that comes from.

And if either Character Development stays (as it deffo should for Peter), they both need to be rewritten. Peter's is long, rambly, and violates example indentation and MJ's as-written just seems like conjecture. Snowy, since you have more thoughts on how she developed would you mind a new CD writeup for MJ?

Ig I could trim the entry down. Though for now I need to sleep.

I'd appreciate help with the MJ entry. As mentioned, I can't even attempt it because I don't see any of her character development.

• Character Development: Peter begins the series as a teenager focused on his own short-term gain; the sole reason he became Spider-Man was to get money for a car to get a girlfriend. However, Uncle Ben's death and the fact Peter could have prevented it caused him to grow a great deal, becoming truly heroic and unable to avoid saving others. Spider-Man 2 puts this to a test, where he quits being Spider-Man because of the toll it takes on his personal life but he eventually realizes he simply cannot allow people to be hurt when he can help them, with or without his powers. In addition, his powers and relative success in life leads to him taking a level in self-confidence, turning the Extreme Doormat Peter Parker of the first movie to a man considerably less afraid to say what he wants.

Weighing in here.

I'd say Peter and MJ's character development entries are pretty accurate. Peter is the character who grows the most in the trilogy and has a character arc in each film - whether it's learning to use his powers responsibly in the first film, making a lifelong commitment to put the world's needs over his own in the second film (because he's a hero at heart, with or without his powers), or realizing he needs to let go of his inner demons in the third film before they turn him into some kind of monster - and that deserves to be acknowledged. The only section of Peter's character development entry that I would say deserves to be cut is the last part, about him growing confident enough to talk to girls: that part feels a bit superfluous.

Likewise, MJ's entry isn't just baseless fanwank or speculation, everything it describes is in the films. Mary Jane's early scenes in the first movie make it apparent her abusive father has destroyed her self-esteem over the years, to the point where she has little to no confidence in herself or her talents. At the end of the first film, she actually tells Peter that he's the first person in her life to show her what real, unconditional love is, which sets him apart from her parents and all her previous lovers.

In the director's cut of the second film, there's a scene where her friend correctly points out that she likes the nice, normal, stable life she could have with John Jameson, especially compared to how unreliable Peter has been lately, but she isn't in love with John himself - and what's more, she still wants to prove something to herself and her father. This scene makes it apparent that how MJ handles her most important relationships is directly tied to how she feels about herself, which becomes even clearer in the third film, when her Broadway career tanks. The lesson she learns over the first two films is to stop settling for loveless, superficial relationships with people because of her self-doubt and her abusive past, and to start loving herself a bit more in the process so she can have a happy, fulfilling future. Peter helped to give her a push, but at the end of the day no one could make that decision for MJ except MJ herself. It's a solid character arc, and it makes the final scene of "Spider-Man 2" a happy ending for MJ as well as Peter.

Alright, my attempt at trimming MJ:

• Character Development: Mary Jane's character arc mostly centers around her struggle over what her heart wants and what she thinks she should have, which stems from her abusive father. This is reflected in her choice of love interests, going for guys who have impressive showings either through wealth or fame. But she eventually comes to realize this love is shallow and loveless, realizing she was better off with someone who truly loved her, which she finds in Peter. In essence, what MJ learns is that she needs to be in a relationship where she is happy, rather than one where she thinks will help her social standing.

It looks good, but I think it could do with a bit more tweaking:

• Character Development: Throughout the first two films, Mary Jane struggles between what her heart wants and what she thinks she should have, a conflict that stems from her low self-esteem and the abusive upbringing her father gave her. When it comes to her love interests, she often tends to go for guys who have impressive showings either through wealth or fame. But she eventually comes to realize these relationships are shallow and loveless, and that she's better off with someone who truly loves her for she is and makes her happy, which she finds in Peter. She learns to stop letting her insecurities and her troubled past hold her back from having a happy and fulfilling future.

So, have we reached a consensus?

Well, I can't speak for the others, but I'm completely onboard with restoring Peter and MJ's Character Development entries, with the new rewrites that have been done to the latter's.

That's good. I like it. Anyone would do the honors?

Since there aren't any other volunteers, I suppose I'll do it.