Shailene Woodley chats about learning she's been cut out of director Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2...
It might be fair to say that Shailene Woodley has had the last laugh here. Originally cast to play Mary Jane in this summer's The Amazing Spider-Man 2, she was eventually cut from the film, with the strong suggestion that the role would be recast for The Amazing Spider-Man 3.
With the world now having seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2, it's hard to see where the character of MJ could have fit in, given that there was so much going on already. That notwithstanding though, Woodley has now headlined two films that have topped the box office this year. Divergenthit earlier in the year, and did good business. And she's one of the two leads in The Fault In Our Stars, which is the surprise hit of the summer in the US.
Chatting to Vanity Fair however, Woodley has been discussing when she got the news that her MJ wasn't going to make the cut in Spider-Man. “For a few hours it was literally like, ‘Oh, my God, was I awful? Why did they cut me? What are people going to think?’", she admitted. But then she said that "I woke up the next morning and I was like, ‘OK, it makes total sense.’ I’m a pretty spiritual person, so I can just sit back and trust that everything happens for a reason, even if my ego doesn’t like it".
Woodley's commitments to the rest of the Divergentmovie saga are likely to keep her from Spider-Man. But that's not been 100% confirmed yet.
[related article: 9 Actresses Who Could Play Mary Jane Watson in The Amazing Spider-Man 3]
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek. And Google+, if that's your thing!
Disqus - noscript
They didn't cut the character because o Shailene. I think they're just trying to be more comic book accurate. In "reality" Peter Parker didn't meet Mary Jane until he was out of high school. Either way the timings worked out perfectly for her. Especially now if she can't commit to Spider Man 3 they avoided having to have people complain about there being two different Mary Janes in the two Spider Mans. Plus you got her for Divergent and Fault in Our Stars.
I was ecstatic when she was cut. She was a horrible casting, even more so than Dunst.
They cut her due to fan reaction from how unattractive and boring she is. She's not a big caliber star. Nor will she be. Divergent was a flop and this other movie is tween fodder.
Boring or not she is making bank.
Another kid who doesn't know how to use the word literally.
Neither the old nor the new trilogy is pleasuring so far. Everybody is miscasted, INCLUDING PETER PARKER/SPIDER-MAN. We will not be getting a satisfying, great Spider-man movie until it goes back to Marvel and every cast gets reset with a STRONG DIRECTOR.
Have to agree there. Almost as bad a casting choice as Stick woman playing Wonder Woman in the new Superman movie
Divergent was not a flop
Divergent was a major success and three sequels have already been green-lit. And "The Fault in Our Stars" outdid Tom Cruise's new sic fi film. Woodley is now a major bankable star.
Woodley is lucky she was cut from that Spider Man flop. She's had two movies in a row that were major financial successes; she is now a bankable Hollywood star. Maybe Spider Man 2 would have not flopped if her star power were added to it.
"A horrible casting"? Is that even English?? A horrible casting what? Decision? Choice? Help me out here!
Unattractive? Really? I'd love to see the girlfriend, or, more than likely your blowup doll, that you have. Got to love the internet geeks that slam attractive women while they sit at home wishing their hand was a vagina. Pathetic...
Okay, here is what hollywood needs to do.
Map out parents who have the genetics to have children with the physical characteristics of every human comic book character. Then, from the moment they are born, they are surround by a setting that will mold them into the exact personality of their chosen comic book character. Periodically, the child should be filmed to fulfill the flash back scenes of the hero's youth, unless it had been determined that the movie will be an origin movie. Then that would require extensive filming throughout. If not an origin movie, the child would grow to the age of 15, where his or her life setting will be slowly pushed to focus on acting, and the ins and outs of film making. This could be done through a drama class, secretly taught by a world renowned acting coach. The movie will be based on a comic book story, verbatim, with input for extra scenes and twists from the original writer(s) of the comic story line. When the time comes to start filming for the movie, the other actors (also born for their parts) would be introduced to each other. If they reject each other as friends (if they are friends in the comic) or vise versa, their role will depend on their acting. If they cannot convince the camera that they are literally character, in every sense, they will be fired. And killed. The movie will be postponed, unless in the rare case a backup for that character is of age.
This is how it would effect our society: Critics (professional and public) will not only criticize the acting of the born-to-be character actor, but also the errors that were made in his upbringing by the "life-staging" crew, and the scientists who picked the parents of the born-to-be character actor. They will criticize the parents for ruining the born-to-be character actor. They will also criticize the director for straying too far from the placement of the objects in the original comic art panels. The original writers of the story will be criticized for straying too far from the original story. And every one will wish they would've made a movie for a different iteration of the character.