Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
I would probably avoid the Sue label if I were you - it's mostly meaningless these days and mostly a shorthand for people characters don't like.
I do however, think there is an argument to be made that Gwen in ASM is somewhat overrated. On her own, she isn't a particularly interesting character (an argument I've heard about comics Gwen as well, incidentally). Emma Stone is the only real reason anyone cares about her.
That being said, the way MJ's character was handled in the Raimi films was not great either and definitely a relic of how love interests were written back then. Well, I would say it's a relic but unfortunately that hasn't fully left us.
edited 11th Feb '18 11:19:39 AM by Draghinazzo
I hate the term mary-sue but I feel that it really does apply to Emma's Gwen.
The Amazing movies really dumbed Peter down to make Gwen smarter. There's that stupid scene in ASM 2 where Peter is watching Youtube videos about what happens to battery's when you over charge them. Peter should know this stuff.
The only reason why people like Marc Webb's Gwen is due to Emma Stone, and the fact that she and Andrew have acting chemistry together because they were dating in real life at the time.
If any other actress had gotten the role people would realize how bland the character really is.
The Black Panther challenge raised a total of $300k, enough to send 23,000 kids to go see the movie[1]
I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with the Old v. New NC video I posted before. To summarize the points made:
- Best Story: The Raimi films were more tightly plotted and had fewer unnecessary plotlines awkwardly shoved into them. Shit like Ghost Captain Stacy and the mystery of Peter's parents just sort of hung there, eating up screentime while adding nothing to the narrative. Raimi's movies had simpler narratives, but that was to their benefit in a two-hour film; there was always a clear impression of what's happening, where it's going, and how it contributes to the story being told.
- Best Action: The action scenes in the Raimi films were often slow and clunky, while the Amazing films had more fast-paced fights with more impactful blows that really helped you feel the urgency of every hit. The Raimi films had cooler setups for fight scenes, but never took advantage of them, and were ultimately outshone by the incredible fight choreography and CGI in the Amazing series.
- Best Villains: The Raimi villains were flashy, cheesy, and often difficult to take seriously while the Amazing villains were more grounded in a series that tried to show a more down-to-earth reality. However, that was not to the Amazing films' benefit; the Raimi villains were splashy, fun, and incredibly memorable with tons of quotable lines, while you'd be hard-pressed to care about any minor details of the Amazing villains or remember much about them at all.
- Best Love Interest: Gwen Stacy blows MJ out of the water in every way, shape, and form. MJ is a bland, forgettable character who regularly drags down every scene she's in, while Gwen is an amazing character who could have respectably been the protagonist in her own right.
- Best Spider-Man: This is the big one. As has often been echoed, Maguire does a better job reflecting the dorky, dweeby nature of Peter Parker while Garfield does a better job as the cool, snarky badass Spider-Man. But the main deciding factor is that Garfield's Peter always feels like he's growing, developing, maturing, and moving forward with every step.
- "One quit being Spider-Man for a while because someone he loved died and the other did it because it was just hard."
- As the hero of the piece, Peter's supposed to be someone you relate to, but also someone you aspire to be. The hero should be a person that the audience is not just able to but eager to see themselves as, someone who reflects what you would like to think you could be if it was you in that situation. Garfield feels like he's constantly on the road to becoming that hero; he's not there yet, but it seems like he progresses through his films. Maguire's Peter, on the other hand, feels like he already peaked, it wasn't that great of a peak, and it's all downhill from here.
I've come to have some appreciation for the Raimi movies as pretty good modern Silver Age adaptations for mostly that reason. Raimi, at the very least, captures the "overblown and not really rational, but fun" element of supervillains very well, even if the stuff that surrounds it isn't always very well put together, and many of the confrontations between Spidey and his bad guys are gold for that reason. Especially given that the Silver Age-style action is really difficult to sell nowadays.
Imo, the Bank Robbery in the Spider-Man 2 is one of the most comic-book-y scenes ever put to film. Granted, I also say that about the Truck Chase in Amazing Spider-Man 2 (though more that that scene is quintessentially "Spider-Man," rather than being Silver Age or Modern or Dark Age or whatever).
edited 11th Feb '18 11:55:54 AM by KnownUnknown
![]()
![]()
I mostly agree with him, except that I don't like the villains in either...conceptually I prefer the ones from TAS, but the execution...shudder.
Side-note: Being a Mary Sue has NOTHING to do with the abilities a character has. A Mary Sue is basically a character who is a narrative black hole - meaning that no matter what happens, the narrative will always bow to the needs of this particular character. Famous examples of this in literature are Bella Swan (who can act like a brat and the story will always tell you that the other characters are evil and wrong when they call her out on it) and Tarzan (who in the actual pulp fiction stories constantly gets everything he wants and needs on a silver platter and is always automatically superior to everyone else by being white (which puts him above the "savages" he encounters), strong (which puts him over his cousin) and nobel (which puts him over everyone else).
Gwen loses her father and the freaking DIES just as she was about to leave for England (rather than planning her life around Peter's needs). So no, she is NOT a Mary Sue. And I am frankly p... off whenever someone calls her one, because the implication there is that she is "too good" for a (female) love interest. Because if she were male nobody would ever wonder if she is a Mary Sue or not.
RE Maguire as a creep, I think that was based on personal details rather than characterwise. I can't really recall specifics, but I think in that upcoming Molly's Game as well as the related book, a very unsympathetic but unnamed high roller is understood to be Maguire.
@Hodor 2 Yeah, the whole Maguier Peter being a creep orginated from page 3210 when this discussion on which Spider-Man films is better. At first I disagree, but then realized that the whole interaction with Peter and Mary Jane does feel like that, especially in the first movie where its mostly one sided on Peter’s part during the first and second act of the film; the third tried to make it work with Mary actually showing some interest in Peter, but during the course of the film (and second movie) she dated like multiple guys until she realized Peter is the one for her (hell she was moments away from marrying John Jameson near the end of the second movie who is basically an awesome boyfriend in hindsight). I blame the writing as I understand they were trying to go for the awkward nerd winning the heart of the girl next door trope, but it just failed as the romance scenes just comes off awkward and uncomfortable to watch.
He'll be alright
He goes on to become a werewolf and date She-Hulk
Forever liveblogging the AvengersMy main problem with Maguire in the Raimi movies is that the man cannot emote to save his life
Forever liveblogging the AvengersBut she had the most hilariously awkward dinner with his parents
It was great
Forever liveblogging the AvengersHonestly as much as I like Spider-Man 2, and I really do, that scene at the end with Peter and MJ irritates me to this day. Raimi, you do realize that you're having MJ do a selfish despicable thing here, and Peter isn't much better for going along with it, and then trying to play it up as "romantic?" That doesn't work.
And the face that John Jameson seemed like a decent guy who did nothing to deserve being humiliated in that way in front of his friends and family, made it all the worse.
Maybe Raimi did realize it and that's why John isn't in the third film, isn't mentioned either, and the whole thing is just swept under the rug completely.
> Maybe Raimi did realize it and that's why John isn't in the third film, isn't mentioned either, and the whole thing is just swept under the rug completely.
I never noticed his absence from the third film until you mentioned it just now,how peculiar
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverOh, so it's just Mjolnir. There was literally no reason to blow Mjolnir up. There was no reason for Ragnarok to exist.
My various fanfics.

I've never heard of anyone call Tobey's Peter a creep before. I personally disagree with the idea of him being a creep.
I do think that Andrew's Peter is a creep. In ASM 2 he pretty much stalked her once a day.