Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 19, 2024 12:29:18 GMT -5
I think the headscarf might have been there partly just to keep readers in suspense as to the exact appearance of the new mystery character... Oh, absolutely (as I mentioned in my post before last  ). Unlike Romita's MJ, Ditko's version is definitely not a happening, swinging '60s chick...just look at her conservative clothing and headscarf. Now admittedly, the headscarf was likely added as just another device to conceal her appearance, but nevertheless, clearly Ditko was intentionally dressing her like a more sophisticated and glamorous woman, a la Grace Kelly, than the free spirited and groovy Ann-Margret influenced character we eventually got. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 19, 2024 13:08:18 GMT -5
I think Ditko was making MJ this ultra glamorous beauty, maybe a secret femfatale like Python Princess, and Stan liked the running gag of Peter thinking she was not worth his time. Certainly the gag worked when Stan and jazzy John introduced her. Too well actually, because Stan did not like her but Romita and the fans loved her.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 19, 2024 14:25:22 GMT -5
I think the headscarf might have been there partly just to keep readers in suspense as to the exact appearance of the new mystery character and not necessarily meant to be part of her trademark look, or at least not necessarily something she'd wear all the time. If she was meant to be glamorous and sophisticated she might have been given to wearing all kinds of different things - always at the height of fashion, of course. In 1965, it wasn't unusual for women to wear scarfs during the day either to cover hair rollers or to keep their hair in place before going out at night. That's how I read it here. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 19, 2024 14:54:17 GMT -5
One thing though, it is clearly established in Stan's dialog that MJ looks like a movie star. His friends and Aunt May have seen her. Yet Stan forgets this when Aunt May finally gets him to meet her in issue 42, as Peter laments how bad she might be.
Besides, as far as I remember, Liz and Betty never mentioned how attractive Mary Jane was to Peter, did they?  The thing is, the whole running gag about Aunt May trying to set Peter up with her friend's niece, who he assumes will be an ugly dork, would've mirrored similar experiences that many young male readers would've had with their Mothers, Grandmothers and Aunts. I, for one, can remember my Great Aunt forever trying to set me up with her friend's granddaughters or similar when I was aged 13-16 or so...and they were all 'orrible!  The joke of course is that the reader is in on the fact that MJ is legitimately a stunning babe long before Peter realises it. Yeah, this is 100% a thing. It even has a name, "Mom cute." Which is a girl that Moms think is really cute, but just barely manages to be passible. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 19, 2024 16:35:05 GMT -5
I think the headscarf might have been there partly just to keep readers in suspense as to the exact appearance of the new mystery character and not necessarily meant to be part of her trademark look, or at least not necessarily something she'd wear all the time. If she was meant to be glamorous and sophisticated she might have been given to wearing all kinds of different things - always at the height of fashion, of course. In 1965, it wasn't unusual for women to wear scarfs during the day either to cover hair rollers or to keep their hair in place before going out at night. That's how I read it here.
Yes, that was definitely part of it. I'm old enough to remember them being worn pretty routinely.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 19, 2024 20:51:10 GMT -5
If Wolverine had stayed a character who appeared in the Hulk he would never be the one Clairmont and Byrne gave us. But no one says they created Wolverine. It's Wein, Trimpe and I think Romita. Same with MJ. To play devil's advocate, there's an argument that Claremont and Byrne effectively did create Wolverine as we know him in any meaningful way other than a throwaway one-off character in a similar suit. But I know what you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 19, 2024 22:10:09 GMT -5
If Wolverine had stayed a character who appeared in the Hulk he would never be the one Clairmont and Byrne gave us. But no one says they created Wolverine. It's Wein, Trimpe and I think Romita. Same with MJ. To play devil's advocate, there's an argument that Claremont and Byrne effectively did create Wolverine as we know him in any meaningful way other than a throwaway one-off character in a similar suit. But I know what you mean. But you never see Wolverine created by Claremont and Byrne from any source. But we see Mary Jane created by Lee and Romita. She wasn't. It was Ditko and Lee or just Ditko. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 19, 2024 23:31:09 GMT -5
The Mary Jane with the fully fleshed out, defined personality and appearance was not in any way created by Ditko, so he should not receive credit for a character he was not going to create. The evidence is in the kind of female characters he co-created, and contrast that with the Romita / Lee interpretations, which includes Gwen Stacy. They're effectively the same characters in name only, with Romita / Lee giving them the creative life & fire which made them iconic Marvel characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Mar 20, 2024 5:38:27 GMT -5
If Wolverine had stayed a character who appeared in the Hulk he would never be the one Clairmont and Byrne gave us. But no one says they created Wolverine. It's Wein, Trimpe and I think Romita. Same with MJ. Wikipedia credits Roy Thomas, Len Wein and John Romita, but not Herb Trimpe. I think Trimpe's drawing of Wolverine in the last panel of Incredible Hulk #180 was based on a sketch by Romita. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 20, 2024 6:34:42 GMT -5
If Wolverine had stayed a character who appeared in the Hulk he would never be the one Clairmont and Byrne gave us. But no one says they created Wolverine. It's Wein, Trimpe and I think Romita. Same with MJ. Wikipedia credits Roy Thomas, Len Wein and John Romita, but not Herb Trimpe. I think Trimpe's drawing of Wolverine in the last panel of Incredible Hulk #180 was based on a sketch by Romita. I stand corrected, though my point remains. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 23, 2024 8:47:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 30, 2024 14:51:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2024 15:02:44 GMT -5
Why would someone take the time to do all that? There are so few people around who even know what Atlas was much less care about what Stan wrote. It seems kind of just angry to me, it's all ancient history at this point.
He could be reading those same comics instead, that sounds like more fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 30, 2024 15:25:38 GMT -5
Why would someone take the time to do all that? There are so few people around who even know what Atlas was much less care about what Stan wrote. It seems kind of just angry to me, it's all ancient history at this point. He could be reading those same comics instead, that sounds like more fun. Because this is yet another way of trying to trash Stan Lee's entire career, and there's no "but--but--its not" excuse to make anyone think its not an obvious attempt to drum Lee out of all comic book history, even before the start of "Marvel Comics". Some have bought into the comic book sub-culture (really fueled by the comic book convention circuit of self-promotion beginning in the 1970s) of lionizing certain artists as "gods" based not on accurate history, but an extremist, defensive posture toward anyone--any historical record that does not support the idea that certain artists were / are "gods" who created everything (which automatically means another just "took the credit") even when that notion is demonstrably false. This is particularly true when the post-"thief associated" work of a certain "comic book god" was never held as in high a regard or successful as the work produced when he was working with the person falsely accused of "stealing" ideas / taking "undeserved" credit. But that fact is never analyzed, because it points to the "comic book god" being talented, but not the single overlord of comic book creation, and that he needed another strong talent to make his most famous, celebrated work possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 30, 2024 18:11:53 GMT -5
We have had 50 years of Marvel corporate history that Stan "created everything" Disney has gone to court over giving other creators credit. And now, when some comic historians try to set the record straight, they are met with derision and attacks on their motives.
|
|
).
The joke of course is that the reader is in on the fact that MJ is legitimately a stunning babe long before Peter realises it.
