It was reported by Clevvermovies that Andrew Garfield joked with one of the producers about the possibility of MJ being changed into a man, and making spider-man a homosexual or possibly just bisexual.
He even went on to say that he thinks Michael B. Jordan should play mj, so the concept of biracial relationships can be explored as well. Although it was fairly obvious that he was joking, and it's doubtful Sony would ever do something like that to spider-man.
However, lets just pretend for the sake of argument that Andrew was serious, and Sony followed that suggestion. Would you personally be okay with them changing MJ from a girl to a man? Would you be okay watching a spider-man/peter parker that's gay? Or possibly just bisexual? Maybe even a bit bicurious?
I'd like to apologize to everyone in advance if this thread offends anyone, but i just thought it might be interesting to discuss.
Also if anyone wants to see the clevver news link where it reports this, then please click on the link below:
For me it would destroy the Spiderman I grew up with. Sorry. The string bean nerd bitten by a radioactive spider who becomes a superhero.
The fact that he had an interest in attractive women and was picked on by brainless jocks in high school were important elements to his overall story to me. In one comic book put out about ten years ago Aunt May discovers that he is Spiderman. Unfortunately, she let slip that she had at one time thought he was gay because he was secretive and had no girlfriend. I took this as a betrayal on the part of Aunt May. He was always doing his best by her and it wasn't his fault that in this world muscle and muscle brained people are regarded in higher esteem than scientists.
No. Let the gay community create their own heroes. Spiderman belongs to the heterosexual string bean intellectual/scientists of our world. It is difficult growing up as a string bean type heterosexual. I don't see why you have this desire to make it even more difficult by taking our hero away.
If you know much about Marvel you'd realized the gay community has quite a lot to do with the heroes we have, and their skin tight costumes.
The gay community is powerful enough to be upfront and honest with people. They don't need to take a hero that has been established for decades as a heterosexual icon for those who are not muscle bound apes. Let the gays create their own hero. I'm sure there are gays at Marvel and also D.C. so that shouldn't be too difficult.
The gay community, to the extent such a thing exists, has nothing to do with this. It was a throwaway comment, by a straight guy.
So whatever conspiracy theory you think is going on here--it isn't.
Like I've said the gay community can be up front and honest nowadays and it is best being just that. No need to steal from some other section of the community a hero that section of the community has had since the early 1960s. Actually I can't see the gay community being that mean or ruthless. Do-gooders who just don't get it, on the other hand, are obviously a different story.
I think you have a closed mind and a strange approach to fiction.
I read and watch characters of all types, I think that is part of the purpose of fiction. Watching only middle class white professionals would get very dull.
And if you have been assuming I am gay--well, I am not.
Okay you're not gay.
As for a closed mind, we're talking about a hero some of us have been associated with as collectors of one sort or another since the 1960s. Why not let the people who have enjoyed the adventures of Spiderman as a heterosexual hero scientist/photographer keep their hero?
As for watching only middle class white professionals doing their thing, well, I'd be happy to check out a movie based on the adventures of T'Challa, The Black Panther or Luke Cage, Hero for Hire. I thought the Blade movies were pretty good though I would have preferred it if they had been set in England with Blade being born there. He'd still be a black man but with a British accent and a connection to Van Helsing. Why much around? Why not just get it right.
Like I've said, if the gays want to create a gay hero they should go ahead and do it. No problem there. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, however, is not a very good approach.
No, it wouldn't be alright to have a gay Peter Parker. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality of course but the character is not originally written as gay and isn't gay in any comics, TV series or films that I know of. So from a source material perspective it wouldn't work. Now they do frequently deviate from source material in films however this particular deviation probably would piss the nerds off.
I mean when Sam Raimi made the 2002 Spider-Man's web-slinging ability a biological one instead of something mechanical he wears on his wrists some fans were upset so making Peter gay would anger not only intolerant folks but die-hard fans.
Peter has never been gay in any of the comics, so it wouldn't make much sense at all for the movies to suddenly change that. It'd be like making Wolverine into a nice guy.
maybe that's why so many marvel fans want the x-men movie rights to revert back to marvel, as i always thought hugh jackman's wolverine was a badass with a heart of gold if you ask me.
as for spider-man being gay, I would still see the film because I'm a huge spider-man fan, so i obviously wouldn't b**** about it.
However, from a marketing point of view, it wouldn't make any sense to make spidey gay for all the same reasons you just said, so i doubt sony will do that. if anything, i just think andrew was joking about the possibility, and someone from clevermovies got wind of it, and then decided to make a story out of it. That's my two cents anyway.
It won't happen, but if it did I wouldn't care. They have changed plenty of stuff from the comicsverse before. It might add an interesting element.
I'd rather see a movie of a canonically gay superhero like Midnighter though.
Considering that Peter Parker is not gay in the comics, and that an integral part of the story is his relationships with Gwen and then Mary Jane, I don't see a reason to make him gay.
Maybe they could make a part 4 and put a homosexual/bi sexual encounter, but to simply change the whole story of Spider-man wouldn't make much sense and probably would do well. The first Hulk change the story line from the comics and it was a horrible movie. I agree with Rod, leave Spidey alone....just create another homosexual superhero.
It would really depend how they go about it. Since this is a sensitive subject for a lot of people making into a giant joke or too obvious might hurt the franchise. I have no problem with people's sexuality but if it turns into what could be called a porno then count me out. Plus you have to think about the kids too. You can't come off too strong or parents will be furious but at the same time you shouldn't use it as a joke through the whole movie. I have seen so movies where multiple characters are gay and they either play into stereotypes or it's nothing but sausage jokes. Hollywood makes really bad gay people.
For Spider-man though I would leave him be for tradition's sake. He's been around a long time and hasn't changed sexual orientation before. A sudden change like that could anger a lot of fans.
Spider-Man has been my favorite hero since I was a kid so I'm not sure how I would react to such a radical change. I probably wouldn't dig it at all. It would seem unnecessary.
Besides, it's well known that comic book fans don't usually react well to any changes with a well established character....I mean, hell, I got annoyed when they changed his costume from the classic red and blue to the snazzy "Secret Wars" black-and-white job (which eventually became Venom's symbiote) for a few months in the 1980s.
Movie-wise, I sincerely doubt Sony Pictures or Marvel would make such an extreme alteration to one of their most beloved characters (and biggest film properties) unless they were intent on committing commercial suicide.
Actually, DC Comics took a character (Alan Scott, the Golden Age Green Lantern) who has been around since the 1940s and turned him gay.
Nick Fury wasn't originally white--but that doesn't seem to bother people. There can be different interpretations.
I am a die hard fan with over 200 Spiderman comics going back 40 years, and it would not bother me. So don't assume everyone fits in a certain attitude box.
What you meant to say is that Nick Fury WAS originally white. I actually prefer him that way as in the old comics.
well there's a bit of a difference there because in the ultimate version of the comic books, nick fury was always portrayed as being a black man modeled after samuel l. jackson long before the first iron man movie was even released.
I don't know if you know anything about the ultimate universe storylines that marvel does, but it's essentially an alternate universe of the regular marvel universe. In the regular one that you and I grew up with, Nick Fury is white. But in the ultimate universe, nick fury is black, so it was done in the comic books way before the movies did it.
From what I can tell about most comic book fans, they're generally more open to something different if that change happened in the comic book first versus doing it on the big screen first because then that would be blasphemy to say the least. Please, don't ask me to explain the logic of why it's more okay to change and mix things up in a comic book iteration of the same fictional character, but it's not okay for a film adaptation to do so, as I'm still trying to figure that out for myself.
However, from a marketing standpoint, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for sony to do this anyway, so even if andrew was serious, it's never going to happen. but if you ask me, i think he was just joking, so i doubt we'll be seeing a gay spider-man anytime soon.
You are talking about the comics created in the 21st Century! Sure, there Fury was a black man. It was a revamping by Marvel. Go talk to a few Marvel fans a LOT older than you and you will find that Fury started off as a World War Two army sergeant . He led the Howling Commandos into battle. Sergeant Fury and the Howling Commandos dates back to the 1960s. It was also decided in the 1960s to have an older Fury run SHIELD, a spy organization. Throughout the comics of the 1960s, '70s, etc Fury was a white man. Go look up the old comics if you don't believe me. Fury always a black man? PLEASE! Get your facts straight.
Sure Fury became black for some odd reason before the movies. So what? To me he'll always be the sergeant and the spy I grew up with.
Again I say you'd hurt people you don't want to hurt and have no need to hurt if you or anyone decides to make Spiderman gay. You might get away with son or daughter of Spiderman as being gay but that's it. In that way you wouldn't be hurting anyone.
Wow rod. You either didn't read everything I said entirely, or you completely didn't understand a word of it. Just wow. If you read what I said, I did acknowledge that the original Nick Fury was a white guy, as it was painfully obvious i was explaining something to psychkinner about how in the Ultimate Marvel Universe that their nick fury was black. While in the regular marvel universe that you and I grew up with, nick fury was white.
Secondly, you don't know how old I am, so I could potentially be even older than you for all you know. Thirdly, I already know all that stuff about nick fury that you just said. Just because I didn't go into that much detail about the character does not imply I didn't know any of that to begin with, which would require me to ask anyone allegedly older than me about the character. Therefore, you shouldn't assume I don't know something just because I never said it.
Fourthly, if you even read all my posts on here, you'd realize that I even explicitly said that I think making spider-man gay is a bad idea. Seriously, how much more obvious do I have to make that point for you? Do I need to spell out everything for you? I even said that it would be a bad idea because from a marketing perspective, it wouldn't make sense. People that have grown up with spider-man for years know the character to be straight, and there's never been a comic book iteration depicting him as a gay character, so it wouldn't work on the big screen. Please read what I actually say next time before you assume you know what my position is on an issue. thank you.
Firstly I'm talking with this psycheskinner guy. He said I had a closed mind. This indicates to me that he'd be happy with a gay Spiderman. I don't have a problem with you, Stevennix2001. You seem an okay guy.
Secondly, my apologies. You seem to have been caught in the middle. It was psycheskinner that came up with the error that Nick wasn't always white. He seems to think that he was originally black. I guess you got caught in the crossfire there. Yep, I don't know how old you are but it seems that psycheskinner is younger than either one of us or not as comic book savvy as he thinks he is.
Okay bad idea when it comes to marketing. I can agree with that for sure Stevennix2001.
no worries. I just thought you were talking to me because you replied to one of my posts. As for psyskinner, i didn't realize he said that Nick fury wasn't originally white, as I thought he said he wasn't always white. I was in a hurry to get to work when I replied to his post, so I can definitely see what you're talking about.
Although I think psykinner means well, I frankly disagree with his opinion. Besides, there are other gay superheroes in the marvel and dc universe that haven't gotten their own movies yet, so why not give one of them a shot at a film? I don't know about you, but i'd be okay with that.
Heck, give North Star his own film, or put him in an avengers sequel. He's openly gay, and you wouldn't have to risk pissing off long time fans. And if Marvel and Disney are so worried about how families will react to north star, then have them take a que from "Paranorman" then.
Don't tell audiences that the character is openly gay when you first introduce him, and then have some hot chick (i.e. black widow or some other girl they introduce onto the team) or a bunch of girls swoon over him because he's a pretty boy. Then around the end, he rejects them all by saying that he's gay; hence he's not interested.
that'll be a great way to introduce north star to audiences without the fact that he's gay getting in the way of audiences giving him a shot as a character. Granted, it's a rip off straight from one of my favorite animated movies, but it might work in this case.
Sounds good to me. I'm happy with the North Star angle. As you say, why piss people off for no good reason. Psyskinner is way too much a do-gooder for other people's good. He's helping to lay the foundations to the road to hell that is paved with good intentions.
Gosh, I wish everyone would stop skirting around the real issue here and just say the truth----------NO it's not okay to make Spiderman a gay character, for the reasons that many have stated here, but mainly for this reason-----------
It would be just one more attempt at pushing the gay agenda onto kids. Kids are commonly fans of cartoons and movies based on cartoon/comic book characters like Spiderman, etc. Liberal activists have been targeting impressionable children for a long time now; the carp is even being pushed in a lot of American schools.
It is NOT okay to keep infiltrating every area of society with such heterophobic nonsense. They need to LEAVE OUR KIDS ALONE! They should be happy enough with their current "superhero" Obama, whose limp-wristed, anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian words and actions have allowed millions of liberals to worship at his perceived-Messiah feet. What??!! Nobody really worships him? But he can leap over the truth in a single bound, create tall tales at the drop of a hat, kill a fly with one swat, avoid responsibility faster than a speeding bullet, incite racial tension with a single slip of the tongue, bring Churches' doctrine and members to a total halt by standing in the pulpit and chiding them to condone gay rights, and condemn millions of unborn babies to death with a single sentence spoken from a public platform!
The people who are looking for a "gay" hero need look no further than the White House. The man probably even has plenty of brilliantly-colored, satiny, super-hero-style speedos hanging in his closet; if not, he can surely borrow some from Bawwwny Frank, or either one of the two big Clintons.
Barney's honest and always has been.
But I bet anyone looking for some amusement could track down Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, or Glenn Murphy Jr.
You mean some of the people who actually had some shame for their actions and sought repentance and forgiveness?
That's 10 times more honest than people like Frank who won't even admit they're doing wrong, or Bill Clinton who used a woman for his phobic pleasure but pretended not to even know it was a sex act.
The question is "would you be okay if Spider-Man was gay in a live action film?"
So my answer would be... Yes, I think it would be interesting.
In 1954 Fredric Wertham's book "Seduction of the Innocent" told of how Doctor Wertham felt that children would play out the scenes of the comic books. And since Bruce was single, no apparent girlfriend or female partnership, Dr. Wertham suggested that Bruce Wayne was gay. Wertham also suggested that Dick Grayson was also gay.
I wasn't till after this book that A "Comics Code of Ethics" was created to assure that Cominc books were less violent and did not give the influence to "Sexual Deviancy" which Homosexuality was deemed to be. (Cogs Wallop.)
So the idea now for a Character to be gay in a comic book would still be a violation of this Code of ethics. Now in a movie form, everything is possible.
With the thoughts of the new 'Reboot' of many storyline, these characters whom we grew up with could be changed because the story would be told in a different light.
Now there was the argument that Peters aunt thought that maybe Peter was gay because he had no girlfriend, and that he was very secretive. How many times has that been suggested on many television shows and movies that the parents thought maybe their son or daughter could be gay. Its a natural thing to assume, and it is great relief to the parents to find out that they were wrong. (Or a relief to find out that they were right but they still supports their child because that is what parents should do.)
So in conclusion, lets just think of it this way, if a hero saves the world from a flesh eating worm for outer-space, and then goes home to relax with his/her partner no matter what the sex of the partner is, then they have done what they are supposed to do, to be a hero.
Wertham is still much hated by the comic book collector for his book Seduction of the Innocent. No one liked the comics code authority.
Marvel defied it once with a Spiderman issue. It is now a collector's item because it had poor circulation. A lot of shops in the USA couldn't or wouldn't touch it. I have it in my collection but offhand I can't tell you the number. It was about drugs. Peter's best friend was hooked and Peter wanted to get him off them. Also within this issue an African American student gets it into his head because of drugs that he can fly and so launches himself off the top of a building.
Anyway there was an Ironman villain by the name of the Pain Master or something like that. The authority made Marvel change the name to the Doll Master. Anyway, this villain only lasted one issue. It was probably a combination of a bad taste in Stan Lee's mouth over being told what to do coupled with the villain being too close a match for the Puppet Master. I only have a reprint of this issue. Not well illustrated but still memorable.
No, Wertham is not a person you really do want to bring up to a comic book collector or a movie goer who is into comic book characters.
As for Bruce Wayne being gay, he started off with a pipe and a girlfriend. He also started off as a killer of killers. He even used a gun and, in his bat plane, a machine gun. The gun, however, was dropped way before the comics code came in. Even before the gun was dropped there was the baterang, black and shaped somewhat like a boomerang. When Robin hit the scene it was a case I think with the creators that they wanted the team of Batman and Robin to be the thing and the only romance was in the catching of Catwoman. Anyway, Batman was only ever gay in Wertham's head. As a gesture to protect their interests, however, the makers of the live action television series decided there should be a female living in the mansion. Also, later on there should not only be a Catwoman (white then black) running around but also a Batgirl, the sexy motor bike riding Yvonne Craig.
If you are looking for comics that were created in the late 1960s going into the mid-1970s that dealt with homosexuality, the true horrors of war, and a lot of other stuff the comics code authority forbade then do check out Comix rather than comics. You could start with ZAP if you like. These Comix were thumbing up their noses at everything to do with the comics code. You might like American Splendor or The Furry Freak Brothers.
I admit I liked Aunt May up until she said she thought Peter Parker might be gay. For some guys and also I believe some gals who are not gay there would indeed be a sense of betrayal. It may be a natural thing to assume but when you know better, like Peter has had a steady woman in his life for ages and it is obvious they are bedroom keen on each other, it is something that should not be mentioned. It is about hurt feelings. Peter did so much for Aunt May and for Aunt May to turn around and say that she didn't even kn ow him enough to know his sexual preferences is, well, a slap in the face. My take at any rate.
Apparently there are Marvel and probably also D. C. heroes that are openly gay. Fine. Put them in a movie. That's okay with me.
I am guilty that I really am not a big comic book reader like I used to be when I was a kid. I'm now more of a Fan-fiction writer/ reader. So I'll have to start researching more on spider man and not just rely on the movies. LOL Thanks for your insight, and your knowledge.
by Brian 9 years ago
I just returned from Chicago's gay pride week, where I marched along with my friends from Campit Resort from Saugatuck, Michigan. We were float #173 of 250 floats. Gay protesters slashed the tires of 50 floats, thinking that it would stop the parade, but all it did was delay it. The media reported...
by mdawson17 11 years ago
In the recent years I have seen more men come out of the closet after being married for more than 5 years. This concerns me becuase I think of the spouse that has dedicated her complete life to him!I have seen children lives tour up and even worse the children involved become very confused.I have...
by taburkett 4 years ago
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?As a young executive, I counseled individuals in the past and promoted them into moral society by consistently stating the truth about the mental affliction. Emotional outbursts continue to support the education of LGBT as a...
by SEXYLADYDEE 8 years ago
Why is homosexuality such a hotbed issue?As a Christian I don't believe I have the right to make judgements. I also think it's interesting how we are supposed to be living with love in our hearts as Christ did but so many drag out the old testament when it's serves their purpose. Ham, Noah son...
by Jacqui 6 years ago
What are your thoughts on same-sex couples parenting?Be it their own child conceived in a straight relationship, a child conceived with the help of a donor or surrogate, fostered children, or adopted children? What do you think about gay couples parenting? Do you have any concerns? What are...
by Kylyssa Shay 5 years ago
Do you believe gay men and lesbian women can have children and still be homosexual?I recently learned that some people believe the act of reproduction (producing a child, even through artificial insemination) makes an otherwise gay person at least partially heterosexual. I do not believe this but...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|