• Spider-Man's Andrew Garfield Wants Mary Jane to Be Male
    190 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DuCT;41420856]Are you on the same internet as me?[/QUOTE] You read some of this guy's posts? I think he's on a lot more than a different internet.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;41420916]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] He's only mentioning Raimi stuff and I personally think changing Mary Jane's sex and Peter's sexuality is more of a significant change than simple organic vs mechanical web shooting.
[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.[/QUOTE]This comment just got me thinking about it, and I didn't really realize how much it could effect at first. Black Cat is meant to be a "Catwoman" maybe-romance-maybe-not to Spidey, so she'd either be made male or Peter would have to settle for bisexual. Gwen Stacy would also need a gender swap if we wanted to go the non-bisexual route. Green Goblin's arch-villain status was mainly cemented by what he did to Gwen Stacy after he rooted out Peter's real identity. While already a pretty big douche, there's next to no chance of a writer [i]not[/i] playing up the implications of a villain going above and beyond the call of duty to ruin the lives and relationships of a hero he discovers to be gay. J Jonah Jameson hates masked superheroes because they remind him of his early, more daring years when he went deep undercover to expose and dismantle secretive hate groups akin to the KKK. He's actually a [i]really[/i] heavy supporter of all kinds of civil rights, and if the public learned that the amazing Spider Man was homosexual it would probably get triple-J to rethink his typical "menace" stance. Chameleon came out of the closet for Peter, and attempted to commit suicide when Peter stated that he didn't swing that way. Eddie Brock (Venom) is a dyed-in-the-wool Roman Catholic, originally believed that the symbiote was sent as a sort of gift from god to go after Parker, and spent a good deal of time terrorizing Parker's loved ones before going after Peter himself. Just like the Goblin, what started out as generic villain stuff in the original draft now raises some [i]implications[/i].
See it would make a great alternate continuity that could be deserving of a film/tv/animated adaptation
[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] No, it's because being gay is not an established part of Spider-Man's character. Yes, the films have done their own thing sometimes, but this is really just shoehorning it in. It seems kind of weird for you to just blatantly calling anyone who doesn't seem 100% perfectly fine with this anti-gay.
[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? 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] - people did complain about the web shooter change. A lot - His fucking web shooters being changed is a design decision with a thought process behind it. Someone changing spiderman's sexuality to being gay just for the sake of it is clearly shoehorned and just an attempt to be perceived as being progressive. There is no critical thought or purpose behind it. Like what purpose does it serve, other than attemping to win brownie points with some gay people, who actually probably didnt give a shit to begin with? None.
Organic web shooters were a big topic discussed amongst Spider-Man writers and fans before anyway.
[QUOTE=spekter;41412260]If you really think fan-fic writers are better than actual, legitimate writers then you really need to re-evaluate yourself.[/QUOTE] Dan Slott/Sloth is the worst writer to happen for spider-man, like really he never takes criticism or just ignores to the point he must be a deviant artist
[QUOTE=Sir Drone;41423740]Dan Slott/Sloth is the worst writer to happen for spider-man, like really he never takes criticism or just ignores to the point he must be a deviant artist[/QUOTE] I never said all legitimate/seasoned writers are automatically perfect though? You'll get bad ones obviously but the fact is a staggering amount of fan fic writers either get fooled into thinking they're good writers by a loyal fanbase that equally doesn't understand good writing and just wants pandered content such as shipping or erotica or they just fail to understand they are limiting their actual creativity by keeping in the safety net of existing universes.
Comic book writing is generally bottom of the barrel shit anyway, yeah I said it. Reading conversation (dont even get me started on puke worthy romance subplots) written by guys who generally avoid conversations with anyone other than other comic book fans is like getting teeth pulled out.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.