Spider-Man's Andrew Garfield Wants Mary Jane to Be Male
190 replies, posted
Being from the south, I get to see all sorts of beautiful poetry about this shit on facebook.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/OjVXBnJ.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Glaber;41408916]I've found that unoriginality is a real problem for the movement. Instead of coming up with their own unique words, they take over the word gay. Instead of coming up with a unique symbol they can get behind, possibly with purple and blue, they have to try to assimilate the primary rainbow.
The taking over of the rainbow has actually become more of a problem now as in a sewing group my Mother belongs to, one of the members was working on a project that had the rainbow and another said "Oh, you're one of [I]those[/I] people." I'm not sure what happened after that but I think the person who's project had a rainbow was offended.
Part of why I believe the Fanfic Fallout Equestria works is Little Pip is an Original character, and her sexual orientation isn't taking up 90% of the story. In fact, for most of the story she's doing stuff that players of the Fallout games would normally do. Exploring ruins, listening to audio logs, helping inhabitants of the wasteland. In fact, if it weren't for the little nods every so often, you'd forget she's homosexual.
If the movement had more Little Pips instead of trying to convert Spiderman, maybe they'd actually make some real progress in acceptance. (Ironic coming from me.)[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/oaslky.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;41403657]at least they could make decent spider man movies that are like the comics before completely changing the universes like that
and to say that it would be a minor change is stupid[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, changing a characters sex is not [I]"changing the universe"[/I].
Are you bonkers
Different genders for the same character usually means different universes
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
Comic book terms of course
[QUOTE=Shadaez;41402395]nah just make spider man spider woman[/QUOTE]
Why? There is already a Spider Woman.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Spider-Woman_v1_1.png/250px-Spider-Woman_v1_1.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41412815]Holy shit, changing a characters sex is not [I]"changing the universe"[/I].
Are you bonkers[/QUOTE]
what kimchimafia said. the fact that the lizard in this spiderman can talk and the fact that peter rides a skateboard already make it a different universe than the canon, "official" one.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;41413738]what kimchimafia said. the fact that the lizard in this spiderman can talk and the fact that peter rides a skateboard already make it a different universe than the canon, "official" one.[/QUOTE]
Lizard talked before, mostly from my memory in the 90's animated series and more recent comics.
Also, does Tony Hawks Pro Skater count as canon for Spider-Man? :v:
[QUOTE=spekter;41402137]It's completely shoehorning a story element in for the sake of it. The whole point of them doing it would be to go "hey guys look we believe in equality and portraying all kinds of sexualities!" rather than doing it to actually change people's perceptions.
It's completely possible in the comics and other mediums given you have so much time to work on the depth of these characters, the potential relationships and making them believable as possible rather than just cramming some shoehorned BS relationship into a movie that'll have a runtime of 1 hour 30 mins at most for the sake of marketing.
I'd want to see them explore these themes but in a way and in a medium where it can be done properly.[/QUOTE]
I sort of see where you're coming from, but how would a homosexual relationship in a 2-hour movie be any less believable than a heterosexual relationship in a 2-hour movie?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;41413766]Lizard talked before, mostly from my memory in the 90's animated series and more recent comics.
Also, does Tony Hawks Pro Skater count as canon for Spider-Man? :v:[/QUOTE]
I think it was always more of the "lizaaaarrrrdddddd killssssssssss" kind of talking tho
but actually i dont remember him in the series much
wow you know i'm actually kind of pissed reading this thread considering so many of you are like "it'd be against his character" or "oh i'm pro-gay-rights but..."
no, fuck you, if you have to say "i'm pro-gay-rights [I]but[/I]" anything, you're not pro-gay-rights. you might not even realize it, but this kind of "come on, that would be absurd" mentality is every bit as detrimental to the gay rights movement as being directly opposed to it. in fact, it's almost worse in some ways, because it creates a facade of support for the movement that falls apart when you look at it too hard.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;41413891]I think it was always more of the "lizaaaarrrrdddddd killssssssssss" kind of talking tho
but actually i dont remember him in the series much[/QUOTE]
Oh no he was very vocal.
Like right [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b70S83TY9Nw#t=708s]here[/url]
[QUOTE=postmanX3;41413877]I sort of see where you're coming from, but how would a homosexual relationship in a 2-hour movie be any less believable than a heterosexual relationship in a 2-hour movie?[/QUOTE]
The thing is this is an established character with an established history. People don't walk into this knowing nothing about Spiderman whatsoever, everyone on the planet has heard/seen of spiderman and knows his history to the extent of "Teenage boy with superpowers who balances his normal life and relationships with his alter-ego's exploits".
If it were some random movie spawned off a new IP then yeah there would be no difference but they're making a movie about an established character therefore his previously portrayed sexual preference and relationship with MJ/Gwen doesn't necessarily need to be written well enough to be believable. You go in with the expectation of him having one of those relationships instantly due to prior knowledge.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;41414026]wow you know i'm actually kind of pissed reading this thread considering so many of you are like "it'd be against his character" or "oh i'm pro-gay-rights but..."
no, fuck you, if you have to say "i'm pro-gay-rights [I]but[/I]" anything, you're not pro-gay-rights. you might not even realize it, but this kind of "come on, that would be absurd" mentality is every bit as detrimental to the gay rights movement as being directly opposed to it. in fact, it's almost worse in some ways, because it creates a facade of support for the movement that falls apart when you look at it too hard.[/QUOTE]
It doesnt change the fact it would be completely shoehorned into the middle of a film series for absolutely no reason.
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
Also, if your excuse for dumb meaningless changes to an already established character (see: The Amazing Spider-Man) is "if you're not SUPPORTING this you're obviously AGAINST gay rights" then what are you even doing.
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
If someone wants to make a movie about a gay super hero why not use one of the already existing gay super heroes like Batwoman or Green Lantern?
Or an X-Men movie where Colossus is like his Ultimate counterpart.
Or Daken, who is bisexual.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;41414318]It doesnt change the fact it would be completely shoehorned into the middle of a film series for absolutely no reason.
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
Also, if your excuse for dumb meaningless changes to an already established character (see: The Amazing Spider-Man) is "if you're not SUPPORTING this you're obviously AGAINST gay rights" then what are you even doing.[/QUOTE]
The same logic could be used to say that the fact that Spiderman is an attractive straight guy with a totally hot girlfriend is shoehorned in, too.
People have been saying that having a gay Spidey would be "shoehorned in" but haven't really given any explanation besides siting completely different, horribly written gay characters.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41414408]The same logic could be used to say that the fact that Spiderman is an attractive straight guy with a totally hot girlfriend is shoehorned in, too.
People have been saying that having a gay Spidey would be "shoehorned in" but haven't really given any explanation besides siting completely different, horribly written gay characters.[/QUOTE]
What.
That doesnt even begin to make sense.
You realize that he was going after Gwen Stacy, a woman, in the first movie right? Suddenly just making him gay for the sake of making him gay would be really, really god damn stupid.
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
And how is him being attractive and straight with a hot girlfriend shoehorned in.
He's been like that since like the 70's.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41414408]The same logic could be used to say that the fact that Spiderman is an attractive straight guy with a totally hot girlfriend is shoehorned in, too.[/QUOTE]
Yeah if you're mentally deficient I guess.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41414408]The same logic could be used to say that the fact that Spiderman is an attractive straight guy with a totally hot girlfriend is shoehorned in, too.
People have been saying that having a gay Spidey would be "shoehorned in" but haven't really given any explanation besides siting completely different, horribly written gay characters.[/QUOTE]
As I stated making this spiderman gay out of the blue would literally be shoehorned due to the fact he is heavily established as a straight character. You would be swapping out a character's sexuality for the sake of trying to get at an untapped market. I don't think anyone here thinks the fact he is attractive with a totally hot girlfriend is a good thing at all, I certainly don't.
The subject at hand is his sexuality therefore we're primarily discussing that, don't assume we all are ok with the rest of the writing just because we're against the idea of suddenly switching up his sexuality.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;41414318]It doesnt change the fact it would be completely shoehorned into the middle of a film series for absolutely no reason.[/QUOTE]
No reason? The reason would be because it'd be an interesting talking point and, if it's pulled off well, it could be an important step towards normalizing homosexuality in popular culture. Having a homosexual relationship in a movie shouldn't have to be a big deal, but look at this situation: a single, offhand comment by an actor caused this whole discussion. Apparently, the public (that's you and everyone else insisting it would be dumb, sorry if you're not aware) isn't ready to accept homosexuality on a cultural scale yet. And you never will be if you don't embrace ideas like this.
Also, the idea that it would be "completely shoehorned" is an assumption based on... what, exactly? Maybe the writers would mess it up, but then again, maybe they'd nail it and it'd work perfectly. And either way, I'd rather see them try and fail that not try at all. Again, assuming it would be terrible and therefore shouldn't be attempted is exactly the kind of cynical apathy that's eating away at the foundations of the LGBT rights movement.
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;41414318]Also, if your excuse for dumb meaningless changes to an already established character (see: The Amazing Spider-Man) is "if you're not SUPPORTING this you're obviously AGAINST gay rights" then what are you even doing.[/QUOTE]
I just explained how it's NOT dumb OR meaningless. I'm sorry if you don't see it.
I don't know what you mean with The Amazing Spider-Man. Was that the comic where they introduced an African-American Spidey? Anyways I think that's an extremely interesting move as well so there you go. I'm consistent.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;41414512]No reason? The reason would be because it'd be an interesting talking point and, if it's pulled off well, it could be an important step towards normalizing homosexuality in popular culture. Having a homosexual relationship in a movie shouldn't have to be a big deal, but look at this situation: a single, offhand comment by an actor caused this whole discussion. Apparently, the public (that's you and everyone else insisting it would be dumb, sorry if you're not aware) isn't ready to accept homosexuality on a cultural scale yet. And you never will be if you don't embrace ideas like this.
Also, the idea that it would be "completely shoehorned" is an assumption based on... what, exactly? Maybe the writers would mess it up, but then again, maybe they'd nail it and it'd work perfectly. And either way, I'd rather see them try and fail that not try at all. Again, assuming it would be terrible and therefore shouldn't be attempted is exactly the kind of cynical apathy that's eating away at the foundations of the LGBT rights movement.[/QUOTE]
No it'd be stupid and theres no reason to do it other than to make him gay.
Its bad story telling.
And again, he was straight and going after Gwen Stacy in the first one, its already established he's straight in this film series.
Like i said, if they want to make a movie about a gay super hero, [b]USE A GAY SUPER HERO.[/b]
[t]http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/10/107617/2447137-gl2.jpg[/t]
[t]http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/14/145293/2801148-batwoman.jpg[/t]
Boom, there you go, two right there.
Dude, its not because i think it'd be terrible, its because i think its completely meaningless to do in an already existing film series involving an established character IN that movie.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41402872]because having a gay spiderman is "hurr durr SHOEHORNED hurr durr NOT FITTING" because spiderman has never been gay, i guess
[editline]10th July 2013[/editline]
there are like 50 different universes with spiderman
how could having one of them be gay NOT be a thing?[/QUOTE]
Because its forced as hell just to show being gay is ok.
Suddenly, everything is remade. The only change? Main character/hero is gay.
That shouts unnecessary and lazy from the rooftops.
[QUOTE=spekter;41414266]The thing is this is an established character with an established history. People don't walk into this knowing nothing about Spiderman whatsoever, everyone on the planet has heard/seen of spiderman and knows his history to the extent of "Teenage boy with superpowers who balances his normal life and relationships with his alter-ego's exploits".
If it were some random movie spawned off a new IP then yeah there would be no difference but they're making a movie about an established character therefore his previously portrayed sexual preference and relationship with MJ/Gwen doesn't necessarily need to be written well enough to be believable. You go in with the expectation of him having one of those relationships instantly due to prior knowledge.[/QUOTE]
If writers simply assume prior knowledge of a character and that character's relationships before you even walk into the theater, they're shitty writers. The challenge (and boon) of the cinematic format is that you have to tell a cohesive story in a scant few hours.
So yeah I guess what I'm saying is that if this is your argument for a straight Spider-Man, then you're just expecting a terrible movie with terrible writers and why would you want that?
[QUOTE=postmanX3;41414512]No reason? The reason would be because it'd be an interesting talking point and, if it's pulled off well, it could be an important step towards normalizing homosexuality in popular culture. Having a homosexual relationship in a movie shouldn't have to be a big deal, but look at this situation: a single, offhand comment by an actor caused this whole discussion. Apparently, the public (that's you and everyone else insisting it would be dumb, sorry if you're not aware) isn't ready to accept homosexuality on a cultural scale yet. And you never will be if you don't embrace ideas like this.
Also, the idea that it would be "completely shoehorned" is an assumption based on... what, exactly? Maybe the writers would mess it up, but then again, maybe they'd nail it and it'd work perfectly. And either way, I'd rather see them try and fail that not try at all. Again, assuming it would be terrible and therefore shouldn't be attempted is exactly the kind of cynical apathy that's eating away at the foundations of the LGBT rights movement.[/QUOTE]
dude you're just twisting everyone's point from "why change a character who's already established as straight, both in the comics and in the movie before the one being released in a while" to "why make a gay superhero"
[QUOTE=postmanX3;41414512]
I just explained how it's NOT dumb OR meaningless. I'm sorry if you don't see it.
I don't know what you mean with The Amazing Spider-Man. Was that the comic where they introduced an African-American Spidey? Anyways I think that's an extremely interesting move as well so there you go. I'm consistent.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit dude really?
Im talking about the [b]MOVIE ANDREW GARFIELD PLAYS SPIDER-MAN IN.[/b]
Also, yes it would be dumb or meaningless because theres NO reason, just changing that for absolutely no reason other than "lolgayrights" is dumb, bad story telling, and lazy as hell.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;41414429]And how is him being attractive and straight with a hot girlfriend shoehorned in.
He's been like that since like the 70's.[/QUOTE]
It's also somewhat of an element. How he used his powers to show off to her and save her and bla bla bla...
[QUOTE=sYnced;41403009]The only way I'd be happy about this if it were Toby Maguire[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/v8gZG.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=postmanX3;41414512]
I don't know what you mean with The Amazing Spider-Man. Was that the comic where they introduced an African-American Spidey? Anyways I think that's an extremely interesting move as well so there you go. I'm consistent.[/QUOTE]
Also you are completely wrong, thats Ultimate Spider-Man.
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
Amazing is the one that just recently ended at issue 700.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;41414611]If writers simply assume prior knowledge of a character and that character's relationships before you even walk into the theater, they're shitty writers. The challenge (and boon) of the cinematic format is that you have to tell a cohesive story in a scant few hours.
So yeah I guess what I'm saying is that if this is your argument for a straight Spider-Man, then you're just expecting a terrible movie with terrible writers and why would you want that?[/QUOTE]
You must be downright crazy to believe the majority of the people going to see Spiderman wouldn't have prior knowledge of his character and backstory. He's one of the most famous comic book heroes to ever be created and there's a ridiculously small amount of people who might not know the first thing about him.
I'm not expecting [B]all[/B] writers to assume people have prior knowledge I'm expecting the writer of a Spiderman movie to assume it, because it's a safe assumption. It doesn't all rest on the writer's shoulders, the studio would have done in-depth market research to make sure the movie sells as much as possible.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;41414617]dude you're just twisting everyone's point from "why change a character who's already established as straight, both in the comics and in the movie before the one being released in a while" to "why make a gay superhero"[/QUOTE]
Let's run this from the top again, then, shall we? Changing an "established character" to be gay would generate far more press than simply coming up with a new superhero. Would it be a little exploitative? Maybe. But goodness me, it would cause a lot of discussion. Just the idea of it happening is proving pretty controversial.
Not to mention superheroes undergo massive revamps on an almost regular basis. Batman has been campy, dark, realistic, old, young, and so on throughout his many incarnations. Spider-Man's gone through a few changes too, if I'm not mistaken. But the point where we start drawing the line is is sexuality because (and this is what most of you are ultimately saying, even if you don't realize/want to admit it) the idea of an established character being gay is scary. That's just too damn progressive. It's too weird. Sexuality is basically a character's only defining trait, right? So when you change that, there's no character left! Goodness.
Sorry for the condescension. But it's boggling to me that you can all act like you're pro-LGBT and then start squirming when you have to actually think about seeing gay people in popular culture.
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;41414691]Also you are completely wrong, thats Ultimate Spider-Man.
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
Amazing is the one that just recently ended at issue 700.[/QUOTE]
Whatever, I misread your post. But you know, just for the sake of discussion, what are your thoughts on Ultimate's African-American Spider-Man? Is that forced and unnecessary too?
[QUOTE=postmanX3;41414772]Let's run this from the top again, then, shall we? Changing an "established character" to be gay would generate far more press than simply coming up with a new superhero. Would it be a little exploitative? Maybe. But goodness me, it would cause a lot of discussion. Just the idea of it happening is proving pretty controversial.
Not to mention superheroes undergo massive revamps on an almost regular basis. Batman has been campy, dark, realistic, old, young, and so on throughout his many incarnations. Spider-Man's gone through a few changes too, if I'm not mistaken. But the point where we start drawing the line is is sexuality because (and this is what most of you are ultimately saying, even if you don't realize/want to admit it) the idea of an established character being gay is scary. That's just too damn progressive. It's too weird. Sexuality is basically a character's only defining trait, right? So when you change that, there's no character left! Goodness.
Sorry for the condescension. But it's boggling to me that you can all act like you're pro-LGBT and then start squirming when you have to actually think about seeing gay people in popular culture.
[/QUOTE]
Dude what the fuck are you talking about, we're saying it'd be a dumb decision to make spider-man gay for no reason in the middle of an already existing film series, not that gay superheroes shouldnt exist or that any that do make people weird, stop, seriously.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;41414772]
Whatever, I misread your post. But you know, just for the sake of discussion, what are your thoughts on Ultimate's African-American Spider-Man? Is that forced and unnecessary too?[/QUOTE]
Well, no, because they handled it well.
And its not Peter Parker.
its Miles Morales.
Changing a character and having a new character take up the mantle after the previous ones death are two very different things, compadre.
[QUOTE=Glaber;41408916]I've found that unoriginality is a real problem for the movement. Instead of coming up with their own unique words, they take over the word gay. Instead of coming up with a unique symbol they can get behind, possibly with purple and blue, they have to try to assimilate the primary rainbow.
The taking over of the rainbow has actually become more of a problem now as in a sewing group my Mother belongs to, one of the members was working on a project that had the rainbow and another said "Oh, you're one of [I]those[/I] people." I'm not sure what happened after that but I think the person who's project had a rainbow was offended.
Part of why I believe the Fanfic Fallout Equestria works is Little Pip is an Original character, and her sexual orientation isn't taking up 90% of the story. In fact, for most of the story she's doing stuff that players of the Fallout games would normally do. Exploring ruins, listening to audio logs, helping inhabitants of the wasteland. In fact, if it weren't for the little nods every so often, you'd forget she's homosexual.
If the movement had more Little Pips instead of trying to convert Spiderman, maybe they'd actually make some real progress in acceptance. (Ironic coming from me.)[/QUOTE]
So... you bring up the MLP OC from a fanfic as a good example but not bother to mention Arcade and Veronica in New Vegas, who are two examples of gay characters written well? And in Fallout?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.