The New Mary Jane Watson Revealed in 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'

Actress Shailene Woodley shows off her new red hair on the New York City set of this Marvel sequel.
For the first few weeks of production, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 director Marc Webb revealed a number of mysterious photos on the set. Now that they are shooting on location in New York City, and not in a studio, we're finally starting to see some of the cast members. Yesterday, we saw Andrew Garfield in his new costume as Spider-Man, and today we get our first look at the new Mary Jane Watson, Shailene Woodley. There are also a few more photos of Andrew Garfield performing some wire work in full costume. We still haven't seen these "gnarly web shooters" that director Marc Webb talked about back in November, but hopefully we'll get to see them soon.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 1
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 2
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 3
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 4
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 5
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 6
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 7
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 8
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 9
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 10
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 11
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 12
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 13
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 14
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 15
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Set Photo 16

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was released May 2nd, 2014 and stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Colm Feore, Felicity Jones, Paul Giamatti, Sally Field. The film is directed by Marc Webb.



Share this story yet?

253 16 4 0 2

RELATED STORIES

BEST OF THE WEB

Comments (69)

  1. Rudy

    She has a really thick neck.

    2 years agoby @rudyFlag

  2. Mieko_Siede

    @narrator It's fine. I appreciate it though. I actually agree with a lot of your points as well. We all just want to see it done right.

    2 years agoby @mieko-siedeFlag

  3. the Narrator

    @bawnian-dexeus Sorry, man. I actually responded to you, but some *ssholes flagged my comment. Not the first time this has happened either, but I digress.

    I actually think your idea is both sound and interesting. In the comics, they played off the whole "I'll introduce you to that Watson girl next door" and Peter not wanting to because he felt his Aunt had poor taste or something. Then when he meets her, he's like "Damn!" Lol. Like @ejk1 said, that's something that needs to be done in order to do the character justice. Perhaps, as you suggested, they don't get along at first. She proves to be superficial, he's preoccupied with his sh*t, and they don't see each other again. Then, after some time has passed and things have changed, she pops up in the third film with the legendary line.

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  4. the Narrator

    @felipe-11 I actually liked Field's in the role, but I wish she had been given more to do. Despite having many of the same scenes and concepts from the original trilogy, which I'll admit it avoidable, one of the primary aspects missing was a strong Aunt May presence. Perhaps that'll be remedied in the future and I'll really get a taste of this new Aunt May. As for Leary, I like the guy at times and at others not so much, so I had little bias going into this thing. I actually thought it was cool having an authentic New Yorker deliver. Then his dialogue and delivery did him in for me. Over the top exaggerations and scenarios like picking on a guy at the dinner table in front of his family, bringing up Godzilla... way to energetic for a seasoned cop and a dad to someone like Gwen, but to each their own. His character would have worked better as an OC rather than Captain Stacy. I agree that Ifans was the most wasted, however. A good actor can only do so much with such a terrible and overdone villain arc. Hands down the worst comic book villain I've seen since "Venom" in Spider-Man 3, and this is coming from a fan of the guy.

    I think this films casting is going okay so far. I like Foxx in the role of Electro because it's outside of the box. I just wish they'd chosen someone who was a fan of the source material so he wouldn't sound to.. "errish" when giving out press reports about the film. Lol. DeHaan is fantastic casting in my book, so I'm satisfied there. Felicity Jones as (rumored) Betty Brant is perfect, and Giamatti will hopefully be J.J. Jameson in a wacky role. I just don't like Woodley's casting when it gets down to it. :P

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  5. Replicant

    @narrator I agree Martin Sheen was a terrific choice. What did you think of Sally Field? I thought she played it amazing, much more of an aunt/mother type than the grandma type of the first trilogy. I thought Denis Leary was good, he played the overprotective type father without actually being too cliche and did a fine job as an officer (but I admit I might be biased because I'm a big fan of his). Rhys Ifans was probably the weakest for me, he's a great actor and he was decent enough, but playing a villain is always a chance to hugely step up your game and I feel like he missed the chance.

    2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag

  6. undeadslayer4

    that is one non hot mary jane

    2 years agoby @undeadslayer4Flag

  7. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @narrator I hope she's introduced the same way she was in the comics, but arraignment of Aunt may and MJ's guardian, or mother, I forget. How? Maybe in this sequel Gwen might not be so keen to jump back into Parkers arms and Parker while still being her protector, going against her father's wishes, college might actually get in the way (It always does, no matter wh you are) and you know, "Oh, Peter, I want yo to meet a special girl to take out" Boom, in comes MJ, only one date, she shows no interest, he doesn't pay much attention. They part ways, and then she can come back in the later films, until well, Gwen dies

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  8. CUPID

    @narrator I'm sure most of them were posters right? and not me getting butthurt about someone's looks.

    2 years agoby @cupidFlag

  9. the Narrator

    Sorry if I inadvertently brought you into this, @mieko-siede, just for agreeing with a guy. Perhaps a part of me just doesn't want to be seen as chauvinist for disliking a bad casting decision based on valid points. I'll agree to wait and see whether or not Woodley brings something unexpected to the table, physical appearance aside, and leave it there.

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  10. the Narrator

    @felipe-11 Thanks for the links, man. First picture aside, I actually find those photos of her cute. So, I guess we'll just agree to disagree when it comes to whether or not Woodley's unattractiveness is due to a lack of make-up. Unfortunately, there are other photos out there that were taken while filming was in progress, full make-up and all, and she doesn't look any better. They have her on a motorcycle if you're interested.

    I thought Garfield was going to be a good casting decision. He turned out decent at best, but I'll admit that's mostly due to his interpretation of the character which was WAY off. Stone did good as Stacy, though I never saw her flourish, either. The first film had too many ups and downs for me to honestly care one way or another for the characters, and I feel like Denis Leary was terribly wasted with hyperbole dialogue. The best casting was honestly Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, but that's perhaps just me.

    Ultimately, I'm saying that with a character like MJ, who (let's face it) doesn't have the greatest depth in the world, casting directors need to look for physical beauty as much as personality and acting chops. Is that easy? Absolutely not, but it's their responsibility to get the best available option, even if they have to go out of their way to do so. Not just casting an up-and-coming actress who happens to have a similar shade of hair color.

    As to how long it's been since high school, I'm twenty five. Perhaps it's been a while, but thanks to the beauty of technology and facebook, photos provide evidence of how old my classmates looked back in the day. It's possible to look like you're in your late twenties when you're seventeen, just like some baby-faced twenty year old's pass for high schoolers.

    @ejk1 - Your entire post summed up what I could not. Bravo.

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  11. Superman81

    @felipe-11 valid points

    2 years agoby @superman81Flag

  12. ejk1

    @brady1138 I'm sorry, I know everyone is entitled to their opinions, but what the f*ck were you watching to make you think Raimi kept to the comics? In the Raimi films, Peter and MJ were lifelong neighbors. He didn't even meet Gwen until the third film, and she was basically a nonentity. Raimi followed the comics almost to a fault at times? Uh uh. Check that noise at the door, my friend. Most people that didn't like Raimi's films were because of how they didn't stick to the comics.

    Some of you are going out of your way to defend these pictures, and you look like you're out of your minds in doing so. I guaran-f*cking-tee you that if this wasn't a Spider-Man project, half of you would be trashing these pictures, or just not saying anything. "So what if MJ is a little less hot than Gwen Stacy in this version?" Did I bring up Gwen? Other than mentioning Stone in regards to her age, did I mention Gwen and her looks as opposed to MJ? Go find that quote. I'd like to see it. This is about MJ, people. There are moments in Spider-Man lore, as there are with other comic book heroes, that are iconic. MJ's appearance at Peter Parker's door telling him that he won the jackpot is one of those moments. She knows she's "the sh*t." MJ looks the part, acts the part, and lets everyone know that she is "it." And Woodley, judging from what I see, either above or in other pictures, isn't walking through any doors making people believe that she is "the sh*t." And you can all defend this, but if they change the essence of the character, any character, then it is not the character.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  13. Replicant

    @narrator Here's a few:

    http://celebsnetworth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Emma-Stone-no-makeup1.jpg
    http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/photo_galleries/regular_galleries/1876-stars-without-makeup/photos/1352748940_emma-stone-640.jpg
    http://cdn03.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2010/11/emma-stone-is-rollin-in-the-help.jpg

    I think Emma is hot, but I'm just saying, rarely are women "drop dead gorgeous bombshell beauties" without makeup.

    And I've only seen her in The Descendants, where I thought she was good enough, but Marc Webb has done a great job so far in his first two movies of finding lead actors with great chemistry, so if he cast her I'm assuming he's right again, at least until I see the movie. If you didn't like Webb's previous casting decisions for some reason then you're entitled to be skeptical about this one, but I'm not.

    And no, my high school didn't have 17-year-old girls that looked like 30 year old superstar models. How long have you been out of highschool? Are you sure it's not your mind playing tricks on you? Cus when I was 14, 17 year old girls and older kids in general looked like they were much older to me, like in their 20s, now I walk past highschools and they all seem 14... (I'm not arguing with you here, just curious, cus that's how I felt back then)

    2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag

  14. LuxoIII

    @ejk1 Sorry that they want to do something a little different with the mythology, I guess. If they did just make it exactly like the comics, you may as well just do sequels to Raimi's trilogy (which I, for one, DO NOT want to see). That's what will set these movies apart from Raimi's trilogy (which, sometimes to a fault, slaved itself to the comics), in that it allows for reinterpretation and bigger sandbox to play in, essentially what JJ Abrams has been doing with Star Trek. So what if Mary Jane Watson is a little less hot than Gwen Stacy in this version? I think it would set up an interesting dynamic. That's the beauty of the reboot: you can tweak and experiment in an established world without actually ruining was has already come before.

    2 years agoby @brady1138Flag

  15. Mieko_Siede

    @narrator No, I haven't seen Woodley in anything other than these photos that we've seen today. If I have seen her it was quite forgettable to say the least. I made no comment or reference to what anyone else has said except, felipe. Beyond that, my view is as it always has been, my own. I don't take the banter of these debates or anything that I see regarding a film that my only involvement is going to be a potential viewer personally. You're entitled your gripes as I'm sure I will have my own as the development of this project goes forward. High school is so far past me that it can't even be seen in my rear view anymore. But I do know that as I matured, what was attractive to me at one point has changed over time, however slight. That was really all I had referred to. There's no telling what our final product is going to look like. We've had adults playing the roles of teenaged leads forever in major motion pictures. We've had leading ladies that were supposed to be drop dead gorgeous to the male leads that simply looked average or non-appealing to a lot of viewers. I simply don't get caught up in it anymore. AND, I'm not going to argue the opinion of anyone else. As you're allowed to be entitled to your own, allow me the same courtesy.

    2 years agoby @mieko-siedeFlag

  16. Nicholaus XX

    I know close to nothing about Mary Jane, and I'm obviously not a fan of comic books, and even I find her being casted nothing short of appalling. The Mary Jane I've seen on one of the television shows was mature, sensual, and attractive. This is just some random teenaged girl.

    But, hey, I probably don't know what I'm talking about; seeing as though this pertains to the comic book universe.

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  17. ejk1

    @brady1138 I've seen pictures of her before today. I stand by what I've been saying ever since she was cast: She should not have been cast. She's too young, and compared to Garfield and Stone, looks it. As far as her not being pretty enough, she's not. I know, everybody's going to be politically correct and say things about MJ's spirit, and try to point out that many stars don't look good without make up. But that's just BS, and possibly hypocritical from any of you that take shots at Kristen Stewart. Woodley is talented, of that I have no doubt, but that doesn't mean she fits the role of MJ. What they're going to do here is change the story around, like the first series, and unlike what they said they were going to do. If Parker opens the door, and she's on the other side saying, "face it tiger, you just hit the jackpot!" it's gonna come off ridiculous, because that is something she can't pull off, no matter how much make up, or how much stuffing they apply. Since they picked Garfield and Stone, they should have picked another actress in that age bracket, one who has curves. This series has been nothing but miscast after miscast, and those pictures above are symbolic of it.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  18. K.Guy

    her over Gwen? BURN!!

    2 years agoby @kguyFlag

  19. LuxoIII

    @ejk1@ridgl@monkeyiron2-0 There are better pictures of her out there, you know:
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0940362/?ref_=fn_nm_nm_1

    And for a little perspective:
    http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-beauty/pictures/stars-without-makeup-20122410/26020

    2 years agoby @brady1138Flag

  20. the Narrator

    Good point, @bawnian-dexeus. Woodley's character may not even see that much screen time in this film (*fingers crossed*) so we can focus on Emma. Perhaps they cast Woodley simply because she's an up and coming name that they can establish after Gwen dies? I hope that's not the case, but who knows.

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  21. the Narrator

    Dude, @cupid.. I can go through several threads on this site and see you posting one word comments like "lame", "boring", etc based on a "few photos" from a film... Just saying... *whistles nonchalantly*

    @ChiRep-1 Lol. Fair enough, friend, but remember that I didn't call her a 6. That was @ejk1. I'd rather not rate women if I can help it, though if I rated Woodley based on her Secret Life of the American Teenager show, I'd give her a 6 acting wise and a 5 in the looks department. Sorry, but she's not remotely my type. Bear in mind I've SEEN this girl in her soap-opera show and in The Descendants. I don't expect movie magic to do too much since it didn't help her out alongside George Clooney. :P

    @felipe-11, @mieko-siede - When is the last time you two were in high school? Do you not remember the bombshells in your school or were there none? Several of my classmates looked older than my English or Yearbook teachers, who were 27 and 30 at the time I was a senior. The thing about MJ is that she's already an early bloomer when she's introduced. She doesn't start out acceptable and then turn slightly more acceptable as time wears on. Have you guys actually seen Woodley in anything? She's hardly developed at all since her teen-drama show started, and it's been five years since that aired. You expect me to think she'll "develop" further? At the age of 21? Don't get me wrong, it's possible, but not to the lengths I'd prefer to see her develop. You guys make it sound like we're calling her ugly out of spite, as if we're all some chauvinistic group of men angry when we don't see boobies or whatnot when we're nothing of the sort. These are valid points about a poor casting decision, simple as that. Her character's "age" can't be taken into account, seeing as how both Stone and Garfield are nearly a decade older than they should be as seniors in high school. Why authenticate one casting decision but not the others? The only real argument you have is... that you want to wait and see before you start judging, and I'll honestly respect that, so long as you allow me my complaints. They're more valid than your defense of a girl who hasn't proven a strong ability to act either.

    Oh, and Felipe - you forgot to show me the bad photos of Emma on set, man. I'm still waiting.

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  22. Mieko_Siede

    @felipe-11 That is a very valid argument indeed. These are supposed to be high school aged characters and for women more than men, the look of that needs to be more genuine. Molly Ringwald wasn't drop dead gorgeous but she cornered the market in those movies in the 80's because she looked like someone you actually went to school with. The perception of what's gorgeous changes with each phase of maturity. Is Shailene Woodley drop dead gorgeous? No. But she isn't ugly either--she's believable. It's also believable that she could mature into the MJ we'd come to know in the comics. It stands to reason now that this was quite possibly the goal of casting her. She's eventually--key word being EVENTUALLY--going to be the leading lady in Peter Parker's life. I'm just waiting to see what comes of everything we're seeing in post.

    2 years agoby @mieko-siedeFlag

  23. Replicant

    @narrator I didn't say you said anything about Kirsten, I was just pointing out the fact that there's a precedent for having a less-than-bombshell actress portraying MJ.

    What I will say though, is that you talk about MJ having to be a total bombshell simply because her comic-book counterpart is usually drawn as one. I don't know if you've picked up a comic-book lately, but ALL girls are drawn as bombshells (unless they're intentionally intended to not appear as such). That might work well in that medium, just as superheroes are usually always over-proportionately drawn, but it's not always the best option for a movie. Like you well said, this is supposed to be high school, and Woodley can pass as a highschool bombshell when she's got her makeup on, just as Emma Stone. You can't have a red-haired Scarlett Johansen type walking around pretending to be in highschool just because she better fits the bombshell description of a comic-book.

    2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag

  24. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    I don't expect much development from the character either way. She's supposed to be that girl who won't settle down, so that's pretty easy, unless they treat the character differently

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  25. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @narrator *high-five* Hermano

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  26. CUPID

    A few bad photos and some of you are butthurt about it, how lame!!

    2 years agoby @cupidFlag

  27. ChiRep_1

    @narrator We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one my friend. I've never seen Woodley in anything before, ever. The only reason I'm backing up the casting is that if there's one area Marc Webb excels it's characterization, so it would just seem silly to cast a relatively unknown actress that didn't look the part unless there was something about her that caught his genuine interest.

    I understand you're point to an extent but you're making it seem like it's acceptable to pull a Michael Bay and sacrifice talent for looks just because the comics say so. There's more on my mind but I'll leave that discussion for a later time when the official photos surface. Just don't forget you called her a "6" ;)

    2 years agoby @ChiRep-1Flag

  28. ejk1

    I said it before, when she was cast, I said it earlier in this post, and I'll say it again right now: She's no jackpot. This isn't one of those Twilight-esque stories where the girl may not be the prettiest, but she has a heart of gold. MJ is legit good, no question. But what makes her the total package is that combined with her looks, which are amazing. And anyone of you defending her can squeeze and squeeze until your dick hurts, but it won't change the fact that Sony got a 6 to play a 10.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  29. ROFLitschristian

    @justatadmatt Yeah. I mean, I don't wanna be that guy, but a little eye liner maybe? I mean, it's Mary Jane!

    2 years agoby @ROFLitschristianFlag

  30. Dan

    @narrator is my hero.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag