Mary Jane Watson Won’t Appear in The Amazing Spider-Man 2

shailene woodleyAlthough The Descendents actress Shailene Woodley filmed scenes in February and March for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, none of them will make it into director Marc Webb’s sequel. Instead, she reveals that Mary Jane Watson has been cut from the movie and won’t appear until the third installment of the Sony Pictures franchise, which arrives June 10, 2016.

In an interview in the new issue of Entertainment Weekly focusing on her starring role in the upcoming sci-fi adventure Divergent, Woodley says, “Of course I’m bummed. But I am a firm believer in everything happening for a specific reason. … Based on the proposed plot, I completely understand the need for holding off on introducing [Mary Jane] until the next film.”

The news arrives even as rumors begin to circulate once more that Felicity Jones is playing Felicia Hardy, better known as the Black Cat.

Mary Jane’s role in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was never expected to be extensive, with an early report asserting that it “blossoms into an integral lead for the planned third movie as the studio seeks to build to the classic ‘Death of Gwen Stacy’ story.” Whether Webb and the studio changed directions in the past few months or simply felt the MJ would work better in the next film remains to be seen.

Updated (12:15 p.m.): According to The Hollywood Reporter, Woodley likely won’t return for The Amazing Spider-Man 3, and the role of Mary Jane Watson will be recast. “”I made a creative decision to streamline the story and focus on Peter and Gwen and their relationship,” Webb says. “Shailene is an incredibly talented actress and while we only shot a few scenes with Mary Jane, we all love working with her.”

Opening May 4, 2014, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Paul Giamatti, Colm Feore and Sally Field.

(via ComicBookMovie, ComingSoon)

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • Frank

    Please, let Shailene Woodley come in Amazing Spider-Man 3 just like in the comic books. I can honestly imagine her dressing up to look real nice in the black top and having Peter answering the door to see M.J. and have her say “Face it, Tiger. You just hit the jackpot.” That’s the one thing I want them to do is to get Mary Jane right, especially after the disappointment she was from the first three films.

  • TheGavGav

    I honestly don’t feel that she was right for the role anyway. I hope they recast for the sequel; I think Jane Levy (Suburgatory, Evil Dead) would make a better M.J. It would have been wiser to give her a small support role in this movie to plant seeds for the character in the sequels though.

  • fearitself

    At least Dunst was hot, that thing is not hot at all. Besides she looks like a 15-year-old adolescent next to the not-so-teenage-looking Garfield.

  • fearitself

    She kinda looks like Stone, but muuuuuch better choice than this 13-year-old teenage girl. She isn’t even pretty. Doesn’t Mary Jane look like model in the comics?

  • Emma Ross

    More like “Face it, Tiger, you just hit the Booby Prize”

    Could they not have found someone less *plain*, and attractive in some capacity to measure up to Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy? Looks aren’t everything, but come on, if they do cast Felicity Jones as Felicia Hardy nobody’s going to believe in a million years Peter would go for *that* MJ.

  • TheGavGav

    Yeah, she actually is a model in the comics. I’m always open to seeing a fresh take on a character but they should at least hire somebody who looks closer to Garfield’s age. She looks very young in comparison to Andrew Garfield, Dane DeHaan and Emma Stone and I’m assuming they’re all supposed to be around the same age. There’s also no denying she’s overwhelmingly average looking in comparison to Emma Stone.

  • Ramone

    Thank God you’re not in casting.

  • Ghostblood

    Nothing against Emma Stone, but honestly, to read this talkback you’d think she was some kind of avatar of beauty. She’s a nice looking lady, but I don’t see her as being measurably more attractive than Ms. Woodley.

    There’s no accounting for taste, of course. It just seems like Stone is the current actress it’s “cool” to slobber over, regardless of whether or not she deserves such idolatry.

  • Chad Gates

    Jane Levy IS their AGE!!! she is like 23. and I think she would be a great choice. She is witty and I think she is a knock out.

  • Will M.

    I don’t get these comments about who Peter would or wouldn’t go for based on appearances… none of these actresses are bad looking, and I don’t see Peter as being that shallow; it seems much more important to have MJ initially come across as the type one might expect to be too shallow to go for Peter. I was really hoping we’d see something similar to her comics arc where she goes from flighty party-girl to stepping up and revealing new depth after Gwen’s tragedy, so I’m a little disappointed that the characters seemingly won’t be featured concurrently.

  • TheGavGav

    It’s not really about appearance here and that is a very bad set photo of Woodley that most people have been seeing, everyone gets bad photos occasionally. To me it’s more that Emma Stone is a very likeable actor with a commanding presence and in that sense I feel Woodley is not the best of replacements. She’d be the secondary main character assuming Gwen dies and I feel they need someone who can equal, if not exceed the presence of Stone’s Gwen Stacy. It’s only my personal opinion but I just don’t see it in Shailene Woodley personally.

  • kalorama

    Agreed. Stone’s a perfectly nice looking girl, but she’s hardly the avatar of beauty that all the fanboys are touting her to be.

  • TheGavGav

    Hopefully they’ll still write her in to be someone who helps him cope with the tragedy in the sequel.

  • Hypestyles

    I hope she got paid.

  • penguintruth

    She doesn’t look like Mary Jane. She looks like Plain Jane.

  • Frank

    A lot of actresses lose their attractiveness when they don’t have make-up on, it’s very rare when one doesn’t. I think there are better pictures of Shailene that somewhat resemble her to Mary Jane from the first issue(s) she was in. Anybody would be better than Kirsten Dunst, though.

  • EVH

    Great news!

    Now go back in time and pluck 1999 Nikki Cox

  • Hy Gearr

    Wow.

    I think she’s reasonably attractive, but the discussion here is bordering (barely) moronic. How about “does she has the acting chops to play someone so outwardly flighty but inwardly intelligent?” That should be the real concern. We haven’t even seen her onscreen as Mary Jane for even five seconds and people are already chiming in with their “not hot enough” comments.

  • thewriteguy

    And she’s an actual ginger.

  • Matthew

    Well, I guess now they can cast an actual woman for the role of MJ. This is good news.

  • EVH

    MJ shouldn’t be “reasonably attractive”. She needs to be attractive. She’s the unattainable hot chick no one would figure Peter could get but does. Neither Shailene nor Kirsten were that. They shoudl get Michael Bay to direct ASM 3 and we are guaranteed our hot MJ.

  • Hy Gearr

    “We.” “Our.” Really? Okay. Look up the actress and check out other headshots. She’s pretty. Whether she’s pretty enough for the average male fan craving eye-candy, YMMV.

    And Mary Jane was pretty, certainly (John Romita couldn’t draw an unattractive young girl if he wanted to) but Peter only had eyes for Gwen. So why does it matter how “hot” she is? Pete couldn’t stand her until after Gwen died.

  • XPrince

    WOW! You’re a real ass. What right do you have calling another human being a THING!. Like she shouldn’t exist, because her face didn’t make your pecker hard. Grow up.

  • jhambi

    Holy nerd-rage! I can’t believe the number of people on here ready to throw her out over one pic. Do a google image search of her name. That is a terrible photo up top. She can be quite attractive and is a fairly good actress.

  • PietroMaximoff

    i guess it has to do with Amazing Spider-Man being planned as a four-part franchise instead of a Trilogy…

    decompression???

  • Happily LS

    “Our money-grab isn’t grabbing enough money. Order another movie. No, three. No, better make it four. Where’s that Mary Jane girl, in part two? That won’t do, move her to part three and four. Really draw it out.”

    “But, do we have enough story for all that? The fans–”

    “Parents will bring children to any movie with Spiderman in the title. Draw it out. Four movies. Run commercials on kids’ channels for a month before each one, done deal. What’s for lunch?”

  • Nexus_Six

    This is an amazing development! She might be a fine actress but I HATED her as Mary-Jane. In my mind, I imagined this scenario of her removal, but those fan-boy dreams rarely occur, this one did! Adored the first film and now super excited for more. Thank You Marc Webb, I’m super impressed by your creative decision! And to the casting department, I have two words: Molly Quinn.

  • Fido

    The only beauty that matters in this world is the one that gave us men an erection.Everything else is a matter of perception.

  • sowat

    With 50 years of stories, yes, they could find enough inspiration to make 4 movies worth of compelling material if they wanted to. But will they…probably not.

  • Vv

    Lol @ nerds. And actually it doesn’t say anywhere that they are recasting. Marc Webb just says he wanted to focus more on Peter and Gwen in the second movie. Note he said “We all LOVE working with her” and not “We all LOVED working with her”.

  • Kop

    Emma stone is fugly

  • Christocoop

    Please replace her with Jane Levy

  • Christocoop

    That would be the perfect reason for him to like MJ as much as he does… His one true love dies and he falls for someone else who sorta kinda looks like or reminds them of their ex. People do that all the time after break-ups or losing a love one.

  • akkadiannumen

    I’m glad. She’s simply not in the same league with Stone (now she would have been a great MJ) so it would have been very hard to believe her to be a rival for Pete’s love. Sure, MJ’s personality and shared story/history with Peter would have been important factors in the love story but this is primarily a sci-fi action flick. There isn’t a whole lot of time for all that development so some things, like MJ’s (and Gwen’s) beauty have to be obvious at first sight. You can say all you want about beauty being subjective but it doesn’t make her any more attractive. Even with make-up, she looks only mildly attractive to me and I’m a guy with very, very broad tastes and opinions on beauty and attractiveness. Essentially, I’m an easily attracted, horny bastard. :p They have to get a surefire beauty that will have a broad appeal. That or an exotic beauty that will draw a lot of attention both on- and off-screen.

    That said, I think it’s a mistake not to introduce MJ in this movie. I agree that they should focus on Peter and Gwen for the time being but they could give her at least a post-credits scene with Aunt May pestering Peter to meet her.

  • Jen Rivera

    Yes!! They better recast with Jane Levy. She would make a great Mary jane!!!!!

  • Gob

    The gist of all this is, the studio or the producers didn’t like her as MJ and they want the opportunity to recast for #3. Otherwise they wouldn’t have completely cut her out.

  • Ndy

    Jane levy! She went from a small short time cast in a tv role, then her own show, and then the star of a classic Horrror remake! Now all she needs is to be Mary Jane for The Amazing SpiderMan 3!! Jane a levy is one of the future bright actoress and is actually beautiful and real not like all fakes like Megan fox lol.