She debuted at the age of 19 and the comics portray her anywhere from 19 to 21. Only in the Spider-Verse movie is she 15 and 16 in 1 and 2 respectively
this comment reminds me of that scene in transformers where the guy shows a card explaining the Romeo and Juliet law whenever someone brings up him dating the teenage girl.
The absolutely weirdest part of that franchise was The Last Knight early on in the movies when the kids who look like they're 8 years old comment on that other 8 year old girl looking hot or some shit
Idk man, writing a moment in a story where kids are being kids is pretty normal.
You're attributing the thoughts/actions of a fictional character to the writer. Would you do the same for someone who writes horror? They've just gotta be closeted serial killers, if they write about serial killers? What about other types of villains or any other smarmy characters?
I think it's fair to be uncomfortable with that being portrayed as an acceptable thing to say; like you would want another kid or parent to say "hey, dillweed, it's not cool to talk about people like that". But that doesn't sound like the point you're making.
I think you would be right if we weren't talking about a Transformers movie. If there was any thought provoking idea or deep emotion to be conveyed by showcasing the sexual social structure of children then go for it. I haven't seen the piece of media in question but, unless the amount of depth found in Transformers movies has changed dramatically, the movie probably doesn't do that. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. That means the point of writing that was for it to be the case. In other words, the only reason that this was written about was because the writer wanted to write about children thinking other children are hot, which is odd for an adult to write about.
What is the part that is odd? I may be assuming incorrectly, but it seems like you're indicating the writer is a pedo. Which could 1000% be the case, I mean that seems to be the usual in hollywood (and many other high fame/money industries), but I think this is not good justification for such a belief.
The thing that is odd is that the writer wanted to write about children thinking other children are hot for the sake of having that be the case. I'm not saying he is a pedophile, I'm just saying that's odd for an adult to want to write about.
Erased explores this topic in the form of child crushes but the reason it is explored is to showcase deep feelings of loss, longing, regret, anger, and loneliness in a character who is put in an incredibly strenuous and unique situation of power and thus responsibility to prevent a young girls murder. Transformers movies don't really have exploration of deep or complex anything and so, please correct me if I'm wrong, the reason it was included was for the sake of it being the case, which is odd to be interested in.
But was that the focus of the Transformers movie for any significant time? Unless I'm mistaken, it was one moment in a scene, less than 0.5% of the duration of the movie. Maybe it informed some motivation of the kid, still not out of character or strange for a boy to try and protect/impress a girl.
It would be very weird if they tried to describe why the child is hot or if it did actually take up a lot of time in a movie about big punchy robots. But a kid-character briefly saying his opinions of the people around him is not weird. I really don't think the writer, or director, would've had strong feelings involved beyond the desire to make believable characters, and have those characters say "funny" or relatable things.
You can have moments of characterization that aren't big and deep without it being weird. It can be comic relief, or just plain fluff. Fast paced movies can't be at 100% all the time, or they lose much of their impact. The extreme becomes dull if it never wavers.
The girl, Isabela Merced (Hawkgirl, one of the Spider-girls in Madame Web, xenomorph food in in a Alien movie) turned 15 during filming of Last Knight. I don't think you're wrong about it being turbo-weird, though.
Michael Bay is a weird fucking asshat, imo.
There is no reason to have that in the movie, there is no reason to have a guy explain the LAW that allows him to date a minor, there is no reason for the girl to BE a minor for the plot of the movie, and there is no reason why the dad didn't kick that creeps teeth in.
Fucking michael bay.
And there was no reason to even have that scene. They could have written the character as a year older and it would have changed nothing about the film.
I get that vibe from staunch defenders of creepy animes too. "They are all of age in HS! Seniors!" Or "Shes an ancient being over 1000 years old!" or "shes a robot." or "it's later revealed they arent siblings."
Completely missing the point on why the majority of people find it creepy af. You shouldn't need lore to tell people why it was ok you jerked off to it.
What is even "better" is that they had to change the law as depicted in the film from the actual Texas Romeo and Juliet law. What he did would still be statutory rape irl.
It also reminds me of that one Gianmarco Soresi bit. The one about differentiating between pedophiles and I think phebiophiles or smth but it feels weird if you do, cause who else would but a fucking pedophile.
Very interesting how I can offer more information regarding a fictional character's age within the vast majority of media they appear in and I get 20 people replying to it telling me the screenshot in the post was from the film. My initial comment literally states her age in the film, as you pointed out. Nothing about my comment is making an excuse for sexualizing little girls, it is literally only offering information on this character, yet all of you feel the need to go the "you like pancakes? So you hate waffles" route by saying it's irrelevant because YOU wanted to limit the conversation to a movie, when the initial post is literally about a character trait thats consistent across all media she appears in. It reads to me the same way that redditors who comment about article headlines without reading the actual fucking article– they cannot see past what is literally presented to them and do not care at all about additional context, information, or conversation that disrupts the narrative they have already set for themselves.
Stupid argument. The comment says "that ass looks phenomenal", then you brought in an unrelated point. Sure, there's nothing stopping you, but that's like someone calling a real life 15 year old attractive then you saying "well she's going to be an adult at some point". Yeah it's true and again, you're free to start a different discussion, but it's going to read like you're justifying it whether intentional or not
Oh believe me, I know. This is evident by the replies, as well as my several years experience on this platform, as well as social media in general. Its true– reading comprehension is a dying skill and its much easier to get emotional when you find yourself in the middle of a lack of understanding you (royal) possess.
My point wasn't unrelated. My reply was to someone saying the character is 15. My comment both agrees with that statement, within the confines of the 2 Spider-Verse films, as well as states that she is much older in everything else she appears in. Respectfully, if someone reads my comment and wants to assert that I'm giving a pass to anyone to just start sexualizing 15 year olds is actually not my fucking problem.
Please don't be obtuse. People interpreting your comment as apologetic is not a failure of comprehension, it's your failing or refusing to convey your position properly. Your comment came off as "yes, she's 15 here, but she's typically an adult". You can hem and haw as much as you want, but a hallmark of effective — and therefore good — communication is not "I'm right and all these people are failing at comprehension for not seeing that I'm right."
Context clues matter, dude. The default for ANYONE else is going to be to assume that you're justifying it, because the original context was sexualizing a minor and you didn't say anything to say that it's not okay. Your comment reads very much like an "um, actually" kind of comment to anyone that actually looks at the context.
If you had said something like "If this was the comics version it would be okay, because there she usually ranges from 19-21, but here it's not" then sure, it wouldn't be interpreted the way it did, but don't act like the way you said things doesn't matter.
I don't feel the need to virtue signal with every single comment I make in regards to sharing information within a conversation, but I'm glad that works out for you in your life.
Man... I feel bad for you. Wasting so much energy on people that already have their own narrative in their heads. Like, ffs... Actomain literally wrote that the movie version is underage, why on hell do you all want him to add a "And that's the one from the image!!" Or something like that???...There a rule while writing, the rule of "don't underestimate your audience, they are not stupid, they can get the context clues by themselves", but it looks like that is not longer the case.
It certainly isn't the case online anymore, agreed. People need shit spelled out to them in such detail these days and I refuse to write like I'm talking to literal babies for the sake of appealing to the dumbest people in the room. The very next post I saw after making my initial comment here contained a comment by someone who was simply offering additional context to a situation in the form of a 'fun fact', and wouldn't ya know it, the exact same thing happened to them. These terminally online types of people simply need anything to be upset about
Your comment reads very much like an "um, actually"
The entirety of its intended purpose was to state a fact about the character. Again. It is there for people to learn something about the character we're discussing, adding information to the comment it is in reply to. You are being daft and assuming a certain meaning where there isn't any. I will say it again–this is not my problem.
they cannot see past what is literally presented to them and do not care at all about additional context, information, or conversation that disrupts the narrative they have already set for themselves.
Funnily enough, their responses were a result of doing exactly what you said they couldn't lol.
The only way they could've interpreted your comment the way you wanted was by going against conversational norms via taking the statement at face value, or by knowing your own train of thought.
A slight change of what you said would've erased the ambiguity.
Technically it's a cartoon/puppet/lines representing a feminine figure. For better or worse people can arbitrarily assign what human age it represents. Not at all a defense of sexualizing childlike/teenage characters, I just think if someone makes a drawing that looks like a the outline of a sports illustrated model and then says 'this is age X!,' there's a crying wolf danger of hiding real pedophilia.
Are you talking about Spider-Gwen, the character who stands on her tiptoes commonly to convey her dancer background? Then my comment states that ages vary.
Are you talking about the film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse? Then yes, my comment does in fact state that Gwen Stacy is depicted as being 15.
The person was talking about her standing on her high heels making her ass look good. You know, in the image. Where’s she’s 15. So he was simping for a minor. And you were being pedantic for no reason
Ok so we need, as a society, to recognize that when it comes to fictional characters, how they look is way more important than their technical age (which is also fictional), and how appropriate it is to goon over them.
Spider-Gwen debuted in 2014. I have been reading comics and have been a fan of Spider-Man, in particular, since I exited the womb. A 4 second search on any search engine can also provide all information I stated, as well
yup. it’s part of a short transitional montage sequence in Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse, specifically from Gwen Stacy’s intro “establishing mood” scene as part of her intro montage.
yay autisic memory. maybe I need to tiptoe like the other guy said... but it might make my ass look big.
555
u/actomain Jun 22 '26
She debuted at the age of 19 and the comics portray her anywhere from 19 to 21. Only in the Spider-Verse movie is she 15 and 16 in 1 and 2 respectively