|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 10, 2013 22:41:44 GMT -5
I'm gay and I think it'd be terrible to make a character who isn't gay gay just for the sake of trying to make a statement. Thank you for saying that. I hate it when these comic books do this to characters. Or, if they actually do get off their lazy butts and create a unique gay character, that character is either the stereotype to the extreme, or is constantly ogling his/her lovers in front of others (like the new version of Allen Scott in front of his employees). I love my new girlfriend very much, but I wouldn't feel comfortable jamming my tongue down her throat for all my co-workers to see...I have this feeling this is true for the vast majority of homosexual people too. Comic book guys, make a character who happens to be homosexual, not homosexuality the whole character. What problems does the homosexual character deal with besides the very tired and worn out prejudice storyline stuff? Don't know if that makes sense or not. Yeah it makes sense and I agree. It goes with TV as well, we don't see often enough a person who just happens to be gay instead of someone who is gay. They go with gay person so they can try to appeal to certain groups, make after school special type episodes or just have the audience laugh at how over the top the person is. I'm offended by the attempts to shoehorn gay characters into stuff. For instance, I like Big Brother but every season it seems they have a gay guy (who is always over the top) or woman on the show. It's so terrible and contrived. It's like they have some quota to fill. Even gay writers aren't immune from doing it. Just take Glee. I feel I don't even need to explain. I was reading up on Shatterstar and it says he was supposed to be asexual according to one of the creators but then some writer came along and changed his orientation to bisexual. I don't know why (some) people feel they have to change stuff to appeal to us. To me it comes off "I hope you are shallow enough to buy into my meaningless gesture. Look at me. Buy my stuff." I'd talk about various musicians and celebrities and their ridiculous efforts but I feel I've ranted enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 10, 2013 22:43:08 GMT -5
actually the Superior Spider-man stuff's actually been pretty funny. besides, it's not like it's supposed to be a permanent change where Peter's dead and Dr. Octopus is going to be Spider-man forever. just a fun little aside. changing a character's sexuality on the other hand, that's something permanent that you can't just put back in the box.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 10, 2013 22:45:49 GMT -5
Thank you for saying that. I hate it when these comic books do this to characters. Or, if they actually do get off their lazy butts and create a unique gay character, that character is either the stereotype to the extreme, or is constantly ogling his/her lovers in front of others (like the new version of Allen Scott in front of his employees). I love my new girlfriend very much, but I wouldn't feel comfortable jamming my tongue down her throat for all my co-workers to see...I have this feeling this is true for the vast majority of homosexual people too. Comic book guys, make a character who happens to be homosexual, not homosexuality the whole character. What problems does the homosexual character deal with besides the very tired and worn out prejudice storyline stuff? Don't know if that makes sense or not. Yeah it makes sense and I agree. It goes with TV as well, we don't see often enough a person who just happens to be gay instead of someone who is gay. They go with gay person so they can try to appeal to certain groups, make after school special type episodes or just have the audience laugh at how over the top the person is. I'm offended by the attempts to shoehorn gay characters into stuff. For instance, I like Big Brother but every season it seems they have a gay guy (who is always over the top) or woman on the show. It's so terrible and contrived. It's like they have some quota to fill. Even gay writers aren't immune from doing it. Just take Glee. I feel I don't even need to explain. I was reading up on Shatterstar and it says he was supposed to be asexual according to one of the creators but then some writer came along and changed his orientation to bisexual. I don't know why (some) people feel they have to change stuff to appeal to us. To me it comes off "I hope you are shallow enough to buy into my meaningless gesture. Look at me. Buy my stuff." I'd talk about various musicians and celebrities and their ridiculous efforts but I feel I've ranted enough. Shatterstar's not really a very good example, though. when he first showed up he was asexual because aside from having swords and stupid hair, he had 0 personality or character AT ALL. and after Rob Liefeld left, other writers started giving him one. and it wasn't like he suddenly became bisexual overnight, that was something that had been built up and hinted at by numerous writers for several years. plus it came with a great new over-the-top King Leonidas-esque personality that was widely accepted by fans as being superior to his original flat character. |
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 32,297
Member is Online
|
Post by Perd on Jul 10, 2013 22:53:48 GMT -5
I thought that was what Spider-Man 3 was about.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jul 10, 2013 22:54:41 GMT -5
It's not all about the readers though. The films were a success because average people enjoyed them. There are people like myself who have never read a Spider-Man comic in their life and aren't bothered by continuity. even so, there's still no money in it. even a casual person (with rare exception) would have difficulty taking a Spider-man movie where the character wasn't Peter Parker seriously. it's not like Spider-man is some barely known character you can do whatever with. But if they reboot it, they could make Peter Parker gay. I don't think it would make much difference to the character. If it was someone like James Bond then it wouldn't work as he's famous for womanising but when I think of Spider-Man it's a long time before I think of a love interest. |
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Jul 10, 2013 22:56:15 GMT -5
It's better than making him Dr. Octopus. That being said, probably the only decently-written, them being gay is entirely incidental character I can think of in comics is Renee Montoya. Wiccan and Teddy in Young Avengers are done really well, as are the cop and doctor in Scarlet Spider. Over in X-factor there are bi characters with Shatterstar and Rictor(who may be just gay, but doesn't seem to be). ALl are handled with respect though. Yup and Peter David did a great job of making the character interesting and deep. He never changed anything, he added. Plus Rob throwing a little hissy fit over the change was just sad and pathetic. He handled it with no grace at all. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 10, 2013 22:59:29 GMT -5
Yeah it makes sense and I agree. It goes with TV as well, we don't see often enough a person who just happens to be gay instead of someone who is gay. They go with gay person so they can try to appeal to certain groups, make after school special type episodes or just have the audience laugh at how over the top the person is. I'm offended by the attempts to shoehorn gay characters into stuff. For instance, I like Big Brother but every season it seems they have a gay guy (who is always over the top) or woman on the show. It's so terrible and contrived. It's like they have some quota to fill. Even gay writers aren't immune from doing it. Just take Glee. I feel I don't even need to explain. I was reading up on Shatterstar and it says he was supposed to be asexual according to one of the creators but then some writer came along and changed his orientation to bisexual. I don't know why (some) people feel they have to change stuff to appeal to us. To me it comes off "I hope you are shallow enough to buy into my meaningless gesture. Look at me. Buy my stuff." I'd talk about various musicians and celebrities and their ridiculous efforts but I feel I've ranted enough. Shatterstar's not really a very good example, though. when he first showed up he was asexual because aside from having swords and stupid hair, he had 0 personality or character AT ALL. and after Rob Liefeld left, other writers started giving him one. and it wasn't like he suddenly became bisexual overnight, that was something that had been built up and hinted at by numerous writers for several years. plus it came with a great new over-the-top King Leonidas-esque personality that was widely accepted by fans as being superior to his original flat character. Thanks. I had no idea. I was just reading his wikipedia page. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 10, 2013 22:59:33 GMT -5
it would make a HUGE difference. a major factor in Peter's life was that he was terrible with girls, and then his relationships with Gwen Stacy and later Mary Jane were major parts of his story, both in his comic and literally every movie/cartoon he's ever been in, even the daily newspaper strip. and when it comes to MJ it still is considering how most fans want them back together. Spider-man's relationships are not something you can just throw out the window, as Joe Quesada is still getting hatemail for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 10, 2013 23:00:45 GMT -5
It's better than making him Dr. Octopus. That being said, probably the only decently-written, them being gay is entirely incidental character I can think of in comics is Renee Montoya. Wiccan and Teddy in Young Avengers are done really well, as are the cop and doctor in Scarlet Spider. Over in X-factor there are bi characters with Shatterstar and Rictor(who may be just gay, but doesn't seem to be). ALl are handled with respect though. Yup and Peter David did a great job of making the character interesting and deep. He never changed anything, he added. Plus Rob throwing a little hissy fit over the change was just sad and pathetic. He handled it with no grace at all. I still think the real reason Rob got so mad was because Shatterstar was originally created to be his personal self-insert gary stu. |
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Jul 10, 2013 23:04:28 GMT -5
Wiccan and Teddy in Young Avengers are done really well, as are the cop and doctor in Scarlet Spider. Over in X-factor there are bi characters with Shatterstar and Rictor(who may be just gay, but doesn't seem to be). ALl are handled with respect though. Yup and Peter David did a great job of making the character interesting and deep. He never changed anything, he added. Plus Rob throwing a little hissy fit over the change was just sad and pathetic. He handled it with no grace at all. I still think the real reason Rob got so mad was because Shatterstar was originally created to be his personal self-insert gary stu. Now it is Ace and Gary Sue! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 23:08:15 GMT -5
I'm a bit torn on this topic people.
Not because I'm against making him gay, because I don't see why they couldn't.
I don't at all dig this sort of "Keep your forced diversity out of my stuff!" vibe a lot of this topic is getting.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jul 10, 2013 23:17:06 GMT -5
it would make a HUGE difference. a major factor in Peter's life was that he was terrible with girls, and then his relationships with Gwen Stacy and later Mary Jane were major parts of his story, both in his comic and literally every movie/cartoon he's ever been in, even the daily newspaper strip. and when it comes to MJ it still is considering how most fans want them back together. Spider-man's relationships are not something you can just throw out the window, as Joe Quesada is still getting hatemail for. That illustrates the point I'm trying to make. Only people who are dedicated fans of the back-story and continuity and comic book in general would care enough to write hate mail to someone (who I have no idea who is). The average fan wouldn't care if they changed certain points about it. If the girl next door was actually a boy next door, I don't think it would change much. It could also explain why Peter is lacking in social confidence, as he is struggling with his feelings. Yes, that's a general cliche but so is the fell in love with a girl next door story. Had I ever read a Spider-Man book (or any comic book in general) I would be a lot more attached to what they did with certain things but I am explaining how one person with no loyalty to a character can feel about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 10, 2013 23:23:31 GMT -5
but again, I think you're not giving Spider-man's pop-culture penetration anywhere near enough credit. if Spider-man were some C or D lister, yeah the fanboys probably would be the only ones complaining. but this is freaking Spider-man, probably one of the 3 most famous superheroes in the world (the other 2 being Superman and Batman). this isn't some d-lister who fans won't recognize. this is a character with a massive fanbase that extends far beyond the people who read his comic books. I have tonnes of friends who've never picked up a comic in their life that absolutely love Spider-man, and for all of them the Spider-man they've always known is the guy who dates Mary Jane (has a hell of a time explaining who Gwen was to a few of them). if you think a majority of the viewing audience wouldn't call shenanigans on a gay Spider-man (even if it wasn't Peter parker_ you're dreaming.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Jul 10, 2013 23:27:32 GMT -5
I am ok with Marty James being Peter's boyfriend. It would all depend on how they handle the story. If it is done well, with respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildojinx on Jul 10, 2013 23:51:17 GMT -5
I will say that i dont think we'll ever see a gay Batman. Why? Because of Dr. Frederic Wertham. His book "Seduction of the Innocent" implied that Batman and Robin were gay lovers, even saying "If Batman was in the State Department he would have been dismissed". If they made Batman gay, that would have validated Wertham's claims, which means his OTHER claims would start being looked at (and before you say that nobody would remember that, SOTI is still in print).
|
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jul 10, 2013 23:55:59 GMT -5
but again, I think you're not giving Spider-man's pop-culture penetration anywhere near enough credit. if Spider-man were some C or D lister, yeah the fanboys probably would be the only ones complaining. but this is freaking Spider-man, probably one of the 3 most famous superheroes in the world (the other 2 being Superman and Batman). this isn't some d-lister who fans won't recognize. this is a character with a massive fanbase that extends far beyond the people who read his comic books. I have tonnes of friends who've never picked up a comic in their life that absolutely love Spider-man, and for all of them the Spider-man they've always known is the guy who dates Mary Jane (has a hell of a time explaining who Gwen was to a few of them). if you think a majority of the viewing audience wouldn't call shenanigans on a gay Spider-man (even if it wasn't Peter parker_ you're dreaming. I think if his pop-culture penetration was that big, they would have made a big Spider-Man film long before 2002. If the first Raimi Spider-Man film had made Peter gay, there would be a huge amount of people who would be none the wiser that it was different from the comics. I worked as a Cinema Manager for over a decade and trust me, the general public don't care as much about things like that. When Spider-Man was released in the UK, it carried a 12 rating meaning no one under 12 was allowed in at all. The final scene was deemed too violent for a PG. When I had to explain this to many, many pissed off parents, they really had no idea about the darker side of the character even though the Spider-Man cartoons and TV show were on when those parents were growing up. As for those "shenanigans", several people called the same on several plot points in the Star Wars prequels (including myself as I'm a Huge fan) but the bigger picture is that they made shitloads of money in the cinema and shitloads on DVD. The Studios are kind of put in a lose-lose situation with certain adaptations. They have to walk a balance that pleases source fans and what they think will please the masses. Although they have a built-in fanbase when it is first released to make the film profitable they need the average joe. As massive as the Lord of the Rings film were (and as someone who read the books a good decade before they made the films) there were several fans who bemoaned the lack of Tom Bobadil and criticised Peter Jackson for his absence. My personal belief is that he adds nothing to the books that made any lasting difference and wasn't missed in the films. Granted, it is a much smaller point than the main character changing sexual preference but even with the Billions of dollars, shitloads of Oscars and other awards and general approval from the public as a whole, they were still criticised for it. You can't please everyone all the time. Honestly, I think Peter Parker is just fine as he is but I still don't think making him gay would be the end of the World. |
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jul 11, 2013 0:32:07 GMT -5
Eh, it's the opinion of the actor, it doesn't bother me. The fact of the matter is that Spider-Man is the flagship of Marvel Comics, and he's also heavily marketed to children. Hollywood is also very much afraid to take chances on minority characters, especially women and gay characters. There's no way in hell in this generation they'd EVER make Peter Parker gay. It's got a less than 0% chance of happening.
That being said, the change would piss me off due to the fact that they're expecting me to believe that a character whose been straight as an arrow for generations is suddenly gay. It'd come off like the cheapest kind of publicity stunt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 0:48:32 GMT -5
There's no reason he can't be gay, but there's also no reason for him to be gay.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,204
|
Post by Legion on Jul 11, 2013 0:51:36 GMT -5
even so, there's still no money in it. even a casual person (with rare exception) would have difficulty taking a Spider-man movie where the character wasn't Peter Parker seriously. it's not like Spider-man is some barely known character you can do whatever with. But if they reboot it, they could make Peter Parker gay. I don't think it would make much difference to the character. If it was someone like James Bond then it wouldn't work as he's famous for womanising but when I think of Spider-Man it's a long time before I think of a love interest. It's funny you mention Bond there, being that Skyfall had that throw away Bond = bi line. I wouldn't like to see a gay Spider-Man simply because that isn't Spider-Man and I like my adaptations to be faithful to the comics. That and because Wiccan and Hulkling need to be Marvel's first gays on the big screen in a Young Avengers movie. Or TV show. With Kieran Gillen writing, producing and directing. |
|
|
|
Post by The Man They Call Asher on Jul 11, 2013 0:57:55 GMT -5
I don't think the question is why he can't be gay, but whether or not he needs to be gay. I say he doesn't.
|
|
