The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **sdsichero** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:04 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:Not a single one of you would turn down Kirsten Dunst.

by **Rockman** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:20 pm

It's amazing all the hate thrown towards Kirsten Dunst's appearance, I thought she was a good MJ and good looking. Just more squawking from a bunch of people who don't interact with real women that often I suppose.

by **False Prophet** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:24 pm

Rockman wrote:It's amazing all the hate thrown towards Kirsten Dunst's appearance, I thought she was a good MJ and good looking. Just more squawking from a bunch of people who don't interact with real women that often I suppose.

You're one of the first I've seen say Dunst, looks aside, was a good MJ.

by **Rockman** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:27 pm

I should say she was good as that version of MJ

She wasn't really MJ from the comics, she was like a hybrid of Gwen and MJ.

I understand why they went that route at the time, even more bottling though that on the second go round they wouldn't try and get the role as close as possible to the original.

Ultimate MJ was alright, but as a fan I prefer the original.

by **Grayson** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:31 pm

Rockman wrote:It's amazing all the hate thrown towards Kirsten Dunst's appearance, I thought she was a good MJ and good looking.

Wait...

...yeah but... :shock:

...huh?!

Just more squawking from a bunch of people who don't interact with real women that often I suppose.

Or it could be that some of us interact with real women on a regular basis and don't need to spend our times fantasizing about below average looking actresses. :smt102

by **Victorian Squid** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:32 pm

I haven't watched those movies since they came out. :smt102

I remember really liking the first one, though, it was one of the first wave of more realistic-looking superhero movies after all the Batman shit and Spawn spawn.

by **Rockman** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Grayson wrote:
Wait... ...yeah but... ...huh?!

Or it could be that some of us interact with real women on a regular basis and don't need to spend our times fantasizing about below average looking actresses.

SQUAWK SQUAWK

by **GLX** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:39 pm

Rockman wrote:
SQUAWK SQUAWK

by **Grayson** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:46 pm

Rockman wrote:SQUAWK SQUAWK

DAMN YOU! I walked right into that one! :smt011

by **bkthomson** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:01 pm

Grayson wrote:
Wait... ...yeah but... ...huh?!

Or it could be that some of us interact with real women on a regular basis and don't need to spend our times fantasizing about below average looking actresses.

She was good in Bring It On. :grin:

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:07 pm

I think Dunst is just fine looking. :smt102

by **Rockman** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:10 pm

Her dental deficiencies are barely noticeable unless you get a good snap shot of it. I think she is a pretty and a decent actress myself. Of course it's all subjective opinion so :smt102

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:11 pm

Rockman wrote:Her dental deficiencies are barely noticeable unless you get a good snap shot of it. I think she is a pretty and a decent actress myself. Of course it's all subjective opinion so

It's not subjective. People act like she's a hideous monster. It's ridiculous. :lol:

by **bkthomson** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:16 pm

Rockman wrote:Her dental deficiencies are barely noticeable unless you get a good snap shot of it. I think she is a pretty and a decent actress myself. Of course it's all subjective opinion so

That has been the one fact that people keep on bring up how she does not have straight, perfect teeth, which really I never noticed or if I did never took anything away from the movie.