Spider-Man's Andrew Garfield Wants Mary Jane to Be Male
190 replies, posted
how is it any different from making a movie where Iron Man is a woman called Tonya Stark for the sake of women's rights
fans would rage because it'd be stupid, shitty and lazy writing, and also because THERE'S OTHER FEMALE HEROES
You're saying that it's just too scary to have a gay superhero, but as AaronM202 already said, THE GREEN LANTERN HIMSELF is gay already
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;41414889]
You're saying that it's just too scary to have a gay superhero, but as AaronM202 already said, THE GREEN LANTERN HIMSELF is gay already[/QUOTE]
The ORIGINAL Green Lantern, Alan Scott, no less.
[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.
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
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]
The problem is there's no justification needed when the core parts of a character have stayed the same for decades and everyone expects/understands the basics of them.
You switch up a character's sexuality or any other core part of their identity/personality all of a sudden and try to do that in a movie, it's gonna come off as lazy and look like they're doing it for the money.
We are talking specifically about movie format and specifically about a highly established character. You're consistently ignoring those two major factors to just warp the argument.
I really didn't like the last spider-man movie (thought it was boring) so I really don't care what they do with this version of spider-man now. So sure, make him gay. Whatever.
Directors are making Human Torch black even though canonically he's a white guy and making (r trying to make?) Spider-Man gay even though he's not.
How about someone write original, fleshed out gay or black or whatever characters instead of lazily retconning already existing ones?
Honestly that would be the best way to do it.
[QUOTE=NoShogun;41415602]Directors are making Human Torch black even though canonically he's a white guy and making (r trying to make?) Spider-Man gay even though he's not.
How about someone write original, fleshed out gay or black or whatever characters instead of lazily retconning already existing ones?
Honestly that would be the best way to do it.[/QUOTE]
Now that I think about it, wouldn't [B]just[/B] swapping out a character's sexuality all of a sudden be fan fiction-tier writing?
[QUOTE=spekter;41415733]Now that I think about it, wouldn't [B]just[/B] swapping out a character's sexuality all of a sudden be fan fiction-tier writing?[/QUOTE]
Andrew Garfield didn't say that they should suddenly make the current Spiderman gay, he's kind of implying that it would be cool if there was a different Spiderman movie or something where Peter was gay. There's literally nothing wrong with that at all. Just because Spiderman has always been a straight white male doesn't mean that he has to stay that way. I mean, for fuck's sake, there was a half-black post-spiderman-death spiderman.
I'm pretty sure a lot of people here are mad because they think he wants to make current spiderman gay, not have a different spiderman movie.
As he said it, it could easily be interpreted either way, but people are more likely to interpret his words to be talking about the current movie because, you know, that's the one he's working on.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41415922]Andrew Garfield didn't say that they should suddenly make the current Spiderman gay, he's kind of implying that it would be cool if there was a different Spiderman movie or something where Peter was gay. There's literally nothing wrong with that at all. Just because Spiderman has always been a straight white male doesn't mean that he has to stay that way. I mean, for fuck's sake, there was a half-black post-spiderman-death spiderman.[/QUOTE]
Nowhere did I imply that creating a new character to take the mantel or reinventing the character fully was a bad thing.
I want to see a different character that would take on the mantel and have to deal with different kinds of problems. Personally I'd find these comic book adaptations more enjoyable if they tried to do their own thing instead of poorly transitioning stories/characters from the comics. Nolan's TDKR is a perfect example of that.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41415922]Andrew Garfield didn't say that they should suddenly make the current Spiderman gay, he's kind of implying that it would be cool if there was a different Spiderman movie or something where Peter was gay. There's literally nothing wrong with that at all. Just because Spiderman has always been a straight white male doesn't mean that he has to stay that way. I mean, for fuck's sake, there was a half-black post-spiderman-death spiderman.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's what I said before. Nothing wrong with a gay Spider-Man or a Gary Jane Watson in a new alternate continuity or in a new film franchise later on. It would be better than most shit that happened to poor Web Head recently. However, the original Peter Parker was created as a straight white male and to be respectful to the source material he has to stay that way if you're basing your work off the original. The main universe will have straight white Parker and I guess since that movies mostly follow the basic source material, they will too.
It's not llike Garfield hates Mary Jane or that they're recasting MJ because they want her to be a guy. Just speculation from a Spidey fan.
Just to note most peoples examples of gay characters that could be used are DC universe characters not Marvel. Marvel isnt gonna make a movie about a DC character etc examples actually relevant for use would be nice.
I dunno, I do think this could be really interesting but maybe not to be added at this stage with this spider man series, another new one why the hell not. This one is just already a bit too established without any nods to it in the first film so it would be a bit out of the blue.
No reason we couldnt give spiderman a couple of gay buddies though, who maybe help him out with whatever crysis at the time.
Also this is a bit of a pet peeve but Alan Scott is only gay in New 52. He was made gay because his gay son from the original continuity, Obsidian, was written out due to the entire JSA being younger.
I would fucking KILL for a Renee Montoya/Batwoman movie though.
And if you want bisexual heroes look at [U]just about everyone[/U] Gail Simone writes (Wonder Woman, Black Canary, Catman, etc.) not to mention Icemaiden and John Constantine.
[QUOTE=Justnobody;41416388]Also this is a bit of a pet peeve but Alan Scott is only gay in New 52. He was made gay because his gay son from the original continuity, Obsidian, was written out due to the entire JSA being younger.
I would fucking KILL for a Renee Montoya/Batwoman movie though.
And if you want bisexual heroes look at [U]just about everyone[/U] Gail Simone writes (Wonder Woman, Black Canary, Catman, etc.) not to mention Icemaiden and John Constantine.[/QUOTE]
Personally I'd kill for a good Hellblazer movie.
Fingers crossed Del Toro gets his wish for a Dark DC movie.
[QUOTE=Justnobody;41416388]Also this is a bit of a pet peeve but Alan Scott is only gay in New 52. He was made gay because his gay son from the original continuity, Obsidian, was written out due to the entire JSA being younger.
I would fucking KILL for a Renee Montoya/Batwoman movie though.
And if you want bisexual heroes look at [U]just about everyone[/U] Gail Simone writes (Wonder Woman, Black Canary, Catman, etc.) not to mention Icemaiden and John Constantine.[/QUOTE]
At least that was during a continuity reboot and sorta had a reason.
i for one think there's a lack of otherkin transethnic representation in marvel comics
[QUOTE=AaronM202;41416440]At least that was during a continuity reboot and sorta had a reason.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that in Earth 2?
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
Also I remember when people were speculating when DC announced that one of their superheroes would be gay. Of course everybody said Aquaman.
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;41416482]Isn't that in Earth 2?
[editline]11th July 2013[/editline]
Also I remember when people were speculating when DC announced that one of their superheroes would be gay. Of course everybody said Aquaman.[/QUOTE]
I believe that was concerning the Alan Scott announcement, which was also in the New 52.
[QUOTE=DuCT;41417141]I believe that was concerning the Alan Scott announcement, which was also in the New 52.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I remember. The Aquaman and Martian Manhunter jokes were infinite in amount.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41415922]Andrew Garfield didn't say that they should suddenly make the current Spiderman gay, he's kind of implying that it would be cool if there was a different Spiderman movie or something where Peter was gay. There's literally nothing wrong with that at all. Just because Spiderman has always been a straight white male doesn't mean that he has to stay that way. I mean, for fuck's sake, there was a half-black post-spiderman-death spiderman.[/QUOTE]
yeah
who was a completely new character, not peter parker, and not just some shoehorned in shit to be seen as "progressive" or some dumb shit.
[QUOTE=spekter;41414497]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]
Spiderman's heavily established flavor of cake could be fucking chocolate and they could change it to vanilla and no one would give a fuck.
But because it's [I]sexuality[/I] everyone has to bawl their eyes out like it's a big deal. so progressive
This is the superhero who can't decide whether he shoots web from his wrist or from a can of compressed air, which is 1000x more relevant to Spiderman, but I don't see nearly as many complaints.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41419916]
But because it's [I]sexuality[/I] everyone has to bawl their eyes out like it's a big deal. so progressive
[/QUOTE]
It helps that many of his stories, and im talking a [i]lot[/i] are about his love life.
When talking about Spider-Man it actually is fairly important.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41419916]
This is the superhero who can't decide whether he shoots web from his wrist or from a can of compressed air, which is 1000x more relevant to Spiderman, but I don't see nearly as many complaints.[/QUOTE]
You mean the organic web shooters which appeared in the Raimi movies and was never even in the comics until the Man-Spider and The Other, and otherwise are never mentioned gain?
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41419916]Spiderman's heavily established flavor of cake could be fucking chocolate and they could change it to vanilla and no one would give a fuck.
But because it's [I]sexuality[/I] everyone has to bawl their eyes out like it's a big deal. so progressive[/QUOTE]
yeah man because in today's society people deal with those things the same way
I mean, I'm really tired of people who hate me just because I prefer pistachio Ice Cream, that's why I'm going to the pistachio ice cream parade that gathers thousands of people in my city
[QUOTE=AaronM202;41420182]It helps that many of his stories, and im talking a [i]lot[/i] are about his love life.
When talking about Spider-Man it actually is fairly important.
You mean the organic web shooters which appeared in the Raimi movies and was never even in the comics until the Man-Spider and The Other, and otherwise are never mentioned gain?[/QUOTE]
Having 2 guys doesn't mean you can't have a significant love plot
Yup, the ones that are rarely present in the series, have significant changes to how Spiderman works, and yet didn't get nearly as much flak. Hhmmmm why is that I wonder
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;41420387]yeah man because in today's society people deal with those things the same way
I mean, I'm really tired of people who hate me just because I prefer pistachio Ice Cream, that's why I'm going to the pistachio ice cream parade that gathers thousands of people in my city[/QUOTE]
yeah and the point is that it shouldn't matter what they like
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41420433]Having 2 guys doesn't mean you can't have a significant love plot
Yup, the ones that are rarely present in the series, have significant changes to how Spiderman works, and yet didn't get nearly as much flak. Hhmmmm why is that I wonder[/QUOTE]
Wait what?
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41420433]yeah and the point is that it shouldn't matter what they like[/QUOTE]
except that someone's sexuality is a lot more important than what their favorite ice cream flavor and you're dealing with it as if it wasn't
[QUOTE=AaronM202;41420470]Wait what?[/QUOTE]
Using organic shooters in the 2002 movie was a much more significant change than changing Mary Janes sex, and the reasons for doing so were probably just as arbitrary.
If everyone has such a problem with established character changes, then why wasn't everyone complaining about that?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;41420592]except that someone's sexuality is a lot more important than what their favorite ice cream flavor and you're dealing with it as if it wasn't[/QUOTE]
Oh so now we're debating about what society at large thinks? Excuse me but I can't keep up with your magic moving goal post.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41420838]then why wasn't everyone complaining about that?[/QUOTE]
Are you on the same internet as me?
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41420838]Using organic shooters in the 2002 movie was a much more significant change than changing Mary Janes sex, and the reasons for doing so were probably just as arbitrary.
If everyone has such a problem with established character changes, then why wasn't everyone complaining about that?[/QUOTE]
Uh.
You do know people did right?
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41420838]Using organic shooters in the 2002 movie was a much more significant change than changing Mary Janes sex, and the reasons for doing so were probably just as arbitrary.
If everyone has such a problem with established character changes, then why wasn't everyone complaining about that?[/QUOTE]
lol I don't think you even know what you're talking about, there were so many shitstorms over the organic webshooters it's not even funny
[QUOTE=Rubs10;41420838]Using organic shooters in the 2002 movie was a much more significant change than changing Mary Janes sex[/QUOTE]
How?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.