Saturday, October 02, 2010

Emma Stone is (probably) Mary-Jane

According to Deadline, Emma Stone (re: "that hot chick from 'Easy A'") is about to win the dubious honor of being Sony Picture's pick to be the new Mary-Jane Watson in the "Spider-Man" reboot - also known as "Spider-Man Begin-Again" or "Spiderlight" elsewhere on the web.

This is too bad on multiple levels - most-notably because this means the damn thing is still happening, but because Stone is a genuine talent, a real rising star who deserves a major role like this AND she's a dead-ringer for the character, much moreso than Kirsten Dunst ever was; in a different scenario this would be really good news. Sadly, here on Earth-1, the headline is basically "Promising Starlet to Damage Career With Appearance in Innevitable Trainwreck."

"Spider-Man: We Needed to Hold Onto The Rights" is still looking for other cast members, most-notably another actress for Gwen Stacy. Directed by Marc Webb, the film is set to be released in 2012, will be shot in 3D, and suck.

16 comments:

Danny said...

Do we really need Mary-Jane? Why can't they just start with Gwen Stacey?

Rarer Monsters said...

Eh... she's a good actress but if her performance is set to be anything like her past performances then it looks like they're going to be replacing the canonical character of MJ as fiery energetic redhead with cold deadpan snarker reciting Juno-esque one liners

Bob said...

@Danny,

In this case, its because the "big idea" of the reboot is to turn it into Sony's version of "Twilight," so they need both girls to be Edward and Jacob to Peter's Bella.

Jonathan said...

Surely there are actors that had suffered worse in their careers, and recovered.

What we all should worry about is if this film does as well as The Expendables or Transformers or... Twilight.

Elessar said...

Look, Mr. Chipman...Bob...Robert...I dunno. Can I make a quick point?

I have to be that guy (and I hate being that guy but I am ALWAYS that guy) but when it comes out...be objective? NOT saying it's gonna be good, not a big fan of being the target of rage right now (normally sure, but I'm in a good mood and I'd like to keep it that way). But when it comes out and you see it, when you sit down in that theater, try to erase all your hate and bile stored up against this movie and just watch it. It's what I do with all the new Twilights, try to give it a chance to do better than it's predecessors. They never do, but there you go.

All I ask. Sorry 'bout the block of text.

Mr_Tinq said...

Yeah, I'm upset that they're rebooting so soon, but It looks like they're lining up a decent cast. And Spider-Man was always supposed to be young, Raimi aged him prematurely. I say let's see what they do with this. It can't be worse than "nipple-on-the-bat-suit"

Christopher said...

Emma Stone has plenty of charisma and talent that her career will survive contact with this film, as will Andrew Garfield (just saw Social Network and he was fantastic). This is not a Twilight-scenario: those are bad films with terrible actors. This may or may not be a bad film with very good actors. Their careers will survive Spider-man, rest assured of that

Nafees said...

adding to what chris just said, the actors aren't bad. And we can't be completely dismissive. How's the old phrase go bob?
you can make a good movie out of anything.

The said...

By "elsewhere on the web" you mean your own fantasy land where you have fans, right?

Jonathan said...

@The

Why, I do declare...

I believe that you are the imaginary critic David Manning, back from the fantasy land of Sony. How is the shill business coming along? I must say, you where quite the professional troll, and yet you have not lived up to your standards.

4/10 moderately successful troll.

G'day.

Joseph said...

Just for argument's sake, why exactly do you hate this movie so much? So far I can only discern:

1-Sam Raimi isn't directing
2-uhh...
3-it sucks and I hate it

Considering your support for Marvel's Avengers stuff, surely you'd support other comic-book production and storytelling techniques being used in film? Like a constantly resetting canon, or different creative teams trying to do their own versions of a character? Like what them there picture books have?

Sam Raimi didn't invent Spider-Man, and neither did the countless fantastic writers and artists who've made his comics over the years (as well as, admittedly, the countless terrible ones). I think you're being unfair on this movie, and the actually very talented people that are involved. I like you MovieBob but I'm tired of reading this shit.

Bob said...

@Joseph,

Exactly what rationale is there to NOT be intensely skeptical of a project with this particular backstory. The "talent" of the people involved isn't any kind of factor, because NONE of them however talented have the clout to do anything other than follow the directives of producers who - thus far - have made NOTHING but disasterous decisions regarding this property.

Let's be 100% clear on this point: pretty-much EVERYTHING that "worked" about the 3 spider-man movies were things forced in by the director and writers. All the other stuff, most notably shoehorning Venom into #3, were the fault of Sony executives. So what your about to get from this new film is coming full-scale from the people who were responsible for almost all of the bad turns the prior films took.

I mean, even working objectively look at the decisions they've made so far:

- Doing ANOTHER origin story.

- Doing it cheap, not for any creative reason but because they want it done FAST.

- Shooting in 3D, despite the fact that their director has evidenced NO skill for action to say nothing of complicated 3D action.

- Re-structuring the franchise into an obvious knock-off of the current fad-of-the-moment re: "Twilight."

And that's just the parts we KNOW about ;)

Neue said...

Ha. Turns out shes going to play Gwen Stacy. I sure hope we get a mini rant from you, Bob. They are ever so entertaining.

Dave said...

@ Neue

Wait, so not only will the main leads be capable of acting this time around, but theyactually seem to be paying attention to canon this time?

Holy shit. Call me one pair of technological webshooters away form being psyched.

@ Bob

And everything that DIDN'T work about the 3 movies was also his fault. Raimy was the one who wanted mary jane. He was also the one who turned her from spitfire into kristen stewart caliber doormat. He was also the one who took out one of the most important elements of spiderman, the humour.

Sandman killing uncle ben, the expositional butler, the fact that movie 3 just redoes the story of 2 but more annoying...that's on him. And honestly, he knew the studio wanted venom since before the second movie was even released. Hence John Jameson. He was supposed to bring the suit back with him from space ala the 90s TAS.

His throwing of a temper tantrum and refusing to plan ahead for something he knew damn well was going to happen does not excuse anything. Nor does deciding that critical plot elements in 3 were less important than an air humping montage that stops the movie dead for the umpteenth time.

That's not even getting into the monstrosity that SM4 was turning out to be.

I get that you like raimy, and so did I back in the 80s. But acting like he's some innocent angel in this is just silly. Raimy has an equal if not greater part in the suckage of the movies than the studio.

Neue said...

Dave: Not sure how making the fiery red head actress a character that ISN'T a fiery red head is "paying attention to cannon".

I do agree with your comments on Ramiy, though. But I'll never understand the love affair some nerds(like Bob) have with him.

Dave said...

@ Neue

Emma stone is a natural blonde. She dies her hair. And they could die it anyway, if that is your complaint. Gwen might not have been as sardonic as stone, but it will be wlecome change from the movie spiderman women being 1 step above twilight heroines in terms of their independace.

Raimy gets love because he made some really fun movies in the 80s. And some incredibly corny stuff in the 90s. And nerds of a certain generation tend to venerate the 80s and everything that sprang from it to an almost divine status. Essentially, they have their nostalgia goggles on.

As for bob...well his blogs would seem to indicate he had his surgically grafted to his face and has no plans to change.

Raimy isn't a TERRIBLE director. But like Burton and others he absolutley cannot stop from imposing his own cinematic fetishes on his work. And that's how we get jazz dance sequences in lieu of character development.

Directors like that can ruin movies despite their talent because they can't let the story speak over their own ego. It's why I'm not enthused at this idea of a Spielberg directed Fall of Reach. I don't need him wasting half the movie artlessly exploring John's daddy issues.

He doesn't have daddy issues. he has MOMMY issues damnit.