Stan Lee: Keep Peter Parker Straight & White - Polidicks

[QUOTE=woolio1;48037317]They're making an Ant-Man movie...[/QUOTE] there is nothing remarkable or different about ant-man though in terms of what they could do in a movie, anyway.

[QUOTE=V12US;48037197]When I said the same about James Bond, I got banned for being a horrible racist.[/QUOTE] No, you were banned because you said [QUOTE=V12US;46785119] But seriously, can we stop trying to be ultra-correct and try to shove excuse-negros into movies to show the rest of the world how progressive we are?[/QUOTE] Literally "excuse-negros" as if it's some sort of slang phrase from the 50s.

[QUOTE=V12US;48037197]When I said the same about James Bond, I got banned for being a horrible racist.[/QUOTE] You realize that's different right? James Bond is just a codename used by agents. Why couldn't one agent who used James Bond as a codename be black?

I mean, it's Parker. Considering that he has a thing going on with multiple women at the same time, just have him fuck everything and everyone. Limiting Parker is already silly enough idea on it's own.

[QUOTE=V12US;48037197]When I said the same about James Bond, I got banned for being a horrible racist.[/QUOTE] actually you got banned for a calling black characters "excuse negros" but ok anyway i agree with what cone said. people always say they have a problem with making a character a part of a minority "for the sake of progressiveness", but wouldn't creating a new hero for that sole purpose be just as bad, if not worse?

I agree with Stan Lee. I feel you shouldn't change a well established character (Peter Parker in this case) for no other reason then "just because". A new character can easily be established. Though on the other hand, if a new character is of minority status I want them to be a well-rounded character rather then just a pandering, stereotypically written, token character (which in my opinion can be more patronizing then having no representation at all).

OR, crazy idea here, how about artists create what they want to create, instead of trying to force anything?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48037481]OR, crazy idea here, how about artists create what they want to create, instead of trying to force anything?[/QUOTE] i'm an artist and i want to create a movie with gay black peter parker what do you say to that HUH

[QUOTE=Pascall;48037228]But can he please tell the people making the movies to focus on other heroes. I mean yeah there are the more popular ones but I'd like to see some different ones getting some movie time. Or hell, even new comics or cartoons or something.[/QUOTE] Part of me really feels like this is why the Marvel cinematic have been able to at least get solid footing and DC is still trying to get theirs going and not stalling. There's only so many times you can make Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman origin stories that people already know. Characters like Guardians of the Galaxy, Dr. Strange and Ant Man aren't exactly well known in the public eye like the X Men or Spiderman are.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48037503]i'm an artist and i want to create a movie with gay black peter parker what do you say to that HUH[/QUOTE] If you want to call him Peter Parker, or rip off Peter Parker, then you better have a good lawyer, that's what I say. But if you're inspired to create one, go ahead. The difference is that you would be motivated by an INSPIRATION, not a market share or feel-good measure. It would create a much better story.

i wouldn't care that much if peter parker was black, ben urich is black in the netflix daredevil series and i didn't mind that at all. i could see a black actor staying true to all the qualities of spiderman's character that i think are important. him being gay would be too much of a departure though i think.

What he's saying is disingenuous in two ways: 1. Back in the day no one was making gay or minority superheroes, certainly not as the main characters. So it's not like there was some huge pool of diverse characters and let's just use the gay ones if you want to have a gay superhero in your new comics or movies. All the top characters are white straight and male. 2. Superheroes have been done so much for so many decades now that you can't come up with a new one that doesn't resemble one that already exists. For instance, if I invented a superhero who was similar to Batman but gay, what's the point? Why not just use Batman and have him be gay this time? I'd respect him more if he was honest. Look, comics for a long time were, and probably still are, aimed at a white, male customer. That's why women look like they do in comics, and why they are portrayed the way they are portrayed. That's why minorities occupy a very small space in comics. The movies have changed that, and it will change more. The movies can bring in far more money than comics. The movie audience is far more diverse than the comic book market. This adds up to the characters being portrayed very different in the movies as time goes by. The female and nonwhite movie audience worldwide is too large to ignore for long.

[QUOTE=Cone;48037181]But my problem with this is, who wants a completely new superhero who was only created to be a gay version of an existing one? When a character's sexuality/gender/race is made explicit in almost any media, it's often said here that it's a move made for PR purposes only, for the creators to look tolerant and inclusive. But if Marvel came out tomorrow and announced Arachnawoman, a comic about an explicitly lesbian woman fighting crime and balancing her social life and things, would you guys be any more accepting than if they did a full reboot of an established female character with the exact same powers, or even just added onto what was already there as they did with Catwoman? I mean, everyone likes fair representation, but it just seems to me like any approach to that can be read into as pandering. It's far from easy to build a wholly new character up to begin with, and it only gets harder when the creator's motives are bound to be so heavily (perhaps even cynically) scrutinized. I just don't think it's as black and white a decision as Lee's making it out to be is all.[/QUOTE] It's a challenge they should be willing to accepted and what you've said goes with what I was saying before that doing such is contrived and, in fact, lazy. They should be willing to expand their universe in different ways, not alter it for some other reasons. For instance, the Spider-Family introduced the character of Silk into its continuity. An Asian-American woman with similar powers to Parker with a few others. As far as I hear she's received rather well. Let me try this: from the top of my head create a character to fill these 'representation' roles. Enter Jacqui Baxter, a new [black] [girl] to one of the character's schools who eventually befriends that character. We eventually finds out that she's a fan of Silk or Spider-Gwen, enamored by their grace, finesse and excessive freedom (which inspires her to get into gymnastics which she seems naturally adept at). She's reserved and isn't quite sure how to approach her own sexuality when she develops a crush on another female classmate (something she eventually tells her friend about). She discovers that she is actually the descendant of Kwaku Anansi (the very first Spider-Man) and that her powers are coming into fruition as she enters puberty. As she discovers her powers she then faces the question of what she should do with her powers. She at first uses them as a means of being free to be her inner energetic self and just have fun. Unfortunately her fun accidentally puts someone's life in danger and gets them hospitalized. She continues to contemplate what to do with her powers when a villain/criminals start wreaking havoc and she steps in helping where she can. People wonder who she is thinking she's working for Spider-Man. Will all eyes on her and feeling of respect and popularity she's scarcely felt she reveals herself to be a new hero names Anansi. And they go from there. That's just off the top of my head. I apologize for the long post but I think that touches on everything, showing a character grow into their role. Obviously there's probably some quirks in the idea, but I think it's be a sound base for a new character. Likewise, this character I've created could easily be gender swapped while maintaining the core aspects of their race, sexuality, and identity. Like I said, they should be willing to accept the challenge of creating new heroes rather than contriving ways for old ones to represent audiences.

[QUOTE=Cone;48037181]But my problem with this is, who wants a completely new superhero who was only created to be a gay version of an existing one? When a character's sexuality/gender/race is made explicit in almost any media, it's often said here that it's a move made for PR purposes only, for the creators to look tolerant and inclusive. But if Marvel came out tomorrow and announced Arachnawoman, a comic about an explicitly lesbian woman fighting crime and balancing her social life and things, would you guys be any more accepting than if they did a full reboot of an established female character with the exact same powers, or even just added onto what was already there as they did with Catwoman? I mean, everyone likes fair representation, but it just seems to me like any approach to that can be read into as pandering. It's far from easy to build a wholly new character up to begin with, and it only gets harder when the creator's motives are bound to be so heavily (perhaps even cynically) scrutinized. I just don't think it's as black and white a decision as Lee's making it out to be is all.[/QUOTE] Catwoman was already bi, the previous writers didn't crow about it to make headlines. [quote] james bond [/quote] You were banned for shit-talking Idris Elba, as you should have been. [editline]24th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;48037619]What he's saying is disingenuous in two ways: 1. Back in the day no one was making gay or minority superheroes, certainly not as the main characters. So it's not like there was some huge pool of diverse characters and let's just use the gay ones if you want to have a gay superhero in your new comics or movies. All the top characters are white straight and male. 2. Superheroes have been done so much for so many decades now that you can't come up with a new one that doesn't resemble one that already exists. For instance, if I invented a superhero who was similar to Batman but gay, what's the point? Why not just use Batman and have him be gay this time? I'd respect him more if he was honest. Look, comics for a long time were, and probably still are, aimed at a white, male customer. That's why women look like they do in comics, and why they are portrayed the way they are portrayed. That's why minorities occupy a very small space in comics. The movies have changed that, and it will change more. The movies can bring in far more money than comics. The movie audience is far more diverse than the comic book market. This adds up to the characters being portrayed very different in the movies as time goes by. The female and nonwhite movie audience worldwide is too large to ignore for long.[/QUOTE] You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Comics were more mainstream than movies until Seduction of the Innocent; movies were a luxury purchase until the late 50s, and even then they were an event until commodotization took hold in the 80s. Comics have tackled race since the 60s, and sex since the 70s; the reason they pander to young white males is young white males continued to buy comics even after they were vilified, and if you hadn't noticed none of the current movies have tried to represent current continuity, which is far more progressive and diverse than the movies are.

[QUOTE=Jojje;48037324]I meant Donald Glover/Childish Gambino of course, but I'll give you that one. :v:[/QUOTE] I remember when Donald Glover realized his name was Don Glover. "I'M A GROWN-ASS MAN! I PAY BILLS!"

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;48037619]What he's saying is disingenuous in two ways: 2. Superheroes have been done so much for so many decades now that you can't come up with a new one that doesn't resemble one that already exists. For instance, if I invented a superhero who was similar to Batman but gay, what's the point? Why not just use Batman and have him be gay this time? [/QUOTE] They did that. They called him Batwing. He is literally Batman, but in Africa, and gay. Actually, there's an impressive number of LGBT superheroes in both Marvel and DC lines.

Oh well, if the guy who hasn't done anything but stupid cameos in movies for years thinks it shouldn't change, it's settled.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48037409]You realize that's different right? James Bond is just a codename used by agents. Why couldn't one agent who used James Bond as a codename be black?[/QUOTE] To most people James Bond is an archetype - part of that Archetype is male, white, english, somewhat posh.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;48038113]To most people James Bond is an archetype - part of that Archetype is male, white, english, somewhat posh.[/QUOTE] At the same time, I think it'd pretty awesome to see Idris Elba play Bond. I don't mind seeing the archetype changed up a bit.

Its kinda hard to disagree with him. Peter Parker's character is a stereotypical white nerd who gets bullied a lot, plus his sexuality is pretty important because of his relationships with Gwen and Mary Jane.

People are labeling him as a racist homophobe. Really? The guy who created the Black Panther and the X-Men is a racist homophobe? Jesus Christ.

[QUOTE=Velocet;48038275]People are labeling him as a racist homophobe. Really? The guy who created the Black Panther and the X-Men is a racist homophobe? Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE] Muh Insulation.gif Though to be fair Claremont and Len Wein are the ones who solidified the rainbow demolition coalition visually, before then Lee just dealt with prejudice straight on through narrative, not exposition.

I don't get why they change gender, skin color and etc of the existing heroes, when they can just create new unique heroes. Are they really out of ideas for new heroes and super powers? For me it looks like a cheap move... while racial/gender/sexuality theme is *hot*...

God damn white cishets get pissy if their precious characters aren't the same demographic that they are.

[QUOTE=Levithan;48038782]God damn white cishets get pissy if their precious characters aren't the same demographic that they are.[/QUOTE] It's not about people, but about greedy company...

[QUOTE=V12US;48037197]When I said the same about James Bond, I got banned for being a horrible racist.[/QUOTE] Craptasket is crap as mod, so its okay. That ban was stupid.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;48037295]They've already made him into a prettyboy, rather than a dorkey Tobey Maguire. I was more annoyed by that. That's a really good point. New James Bond should be an Iraqi man who infiltrates middle eastern governments.[/QUOTE] I would watch the hell out of Iraqi Bond

[QUOTE=Rubs10;48037295]That's a really good point. New James Bond should be an Iraqi man who infiltrates middle eastern governments.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://cdn.hitfix.com/photos/2365082/You-Only-Live-Twice.jpg[/IMG] Nah he'll just disguise himself like in You only live twice - no one will ever know that he was not Japanese.

the difference between this and james bond: james bond being black was a choice that the producers/director/whoever had already made (according to rumor, but it's still in reference to an already-made choice) and that was their right to do. they wanted to do that with the character for whatever reason, perhaps they just liked idris elba's acting if the rumour's true, who knows whereas this is just stan lee responding to people craning for alternative sexuality/race spiderman out of some kind of 'progressive' necessity and telling them why he won't be pressured in to doing what he doesn't wanna do to the character i go pretty far left but you don't need to change straight characters gay in order to represent

[QUOTE=V12US;48037197]When I said the same about James Bond, I got banned for being a horrible racist.[/QUOTE] Uhhh maybe go read your post again [quote]But seriously, can we stop trying to be ultra-correct and try to shove excuse-negros into movies to show the rest of the world how progressive we are? [/quote] You non-ironically used the phrase "excuse-negro"...