Emma Stone is…..


Mary Jane!  Gwen Stacy!

The Spider-Man reboot gets better and better. First, it’s Marc Webb in as director, who showed in (500) Days of Summer he can make AWESOME movies, and more impressively, one that’s a romantic comedy, which should help with Parker/Mary Jane/high school hijynx.

Then, it’s Andrew Garfield (Red Riding Trilogy, The Social Network) as Spider-Man, who by all accounts is an actor on the rise capable of an Oscar statue.

Now, while rumors were that Emma Stone was going to be penned in as Mary Jane, which judging by the picture, would’ve been perfect, she’s actually been tabbed as Gwen Stacy! Apparently Emma’s a natural blonde, too. And whatever, I don’t care who she plays, I just LOVE that she’s involved in this. I’m a huge Emma Stone fan.  She’s beautiful, she has starpower as seen in Easy A, she’s funny charismatic, perfect. She was a great love interest in Superbad, super foxy and funny in Zombieland (one of the best comedies of the past decade) and completely charming in Easy A. She’ll do great opposite Spidey.


3 Responses to “Emma Stone is…..”

  1. davidry214 Says:

    Gack, sorry for forgetting to reply to this before. This is certainly a positive development, as I too like Emma Stone. However, I just can’t get excited for this reboot yet. I still feel very strongly that the non-fanboy will be disinterested in a reboot so soon after the previous line of films. I commend the studio for making some nice decisions, but that doesn’t mean I have to be pumped for the movie.

    Anyway, back to the point of the post: I never did see Zombieland, but I’ve found Stone quite charming in her other roles I’ve watched. I think I would’ve preferred her to play MJ and have Gwen left out, but this could be good too. IMDB still has her playing MJ, so I guess there’s been some confusion all around.

  2. Ryan S Says:

    Emma Stone make my weiner feel weird… in a good way. That said, I also have an eyebrow raised in response to such an early reboot. Sure Spiderman 3 still ranks among the worst movies I’ve ever seen but, in my opinion, that is the exact reason to hold off. People aren’t interested because of not only how much 3 sucked, but also because of the huge success of the Nolan Batman movies added with the oversaturation of comic flicks in the past decade. Wait five more years and then we’ll happily watch.
    And, David, Zombieland is totally worth your time. I found it exceedingly entertaining in both its charm and its zombie mutilation. That’s a difficult balance.

  3. davidry214 Says:

    I agree with your overall conclusion, though I’m not sure how Nolan’s awesome Batman movies fit in. I suppose his dark take on heroes could make people less receptive to high school melodrama superhero stuff, but there’s theoretically room for opposite ends of the genre to succeed, I think. Maybe just the fact that he’s done such a great job could make audiences less receptive to already fucked-up franchises like Spidey and X-Men.

    I’ve never really liked zombie/mutilation-type movies, which is the main reason I stayed away from Zombieland. But I made an exception for Shaun of the Dead (and was glad I did), so I really should try this one too (which I’m told is even better than Shaun).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: