SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Jul 11, 2013 11:57:51 GMT -5
As some others have said. It's not a problem if Spiderman was gay but he never was gay. That's the issue. Everyone these days in the general public seems to be trying to show how pro gay they are which is great but the homosexuals and lesbians can't like it that much. It's kind of like some women who hate when men treat them better just because they're a woman. Why can't we treat asians, blacks, gays, hispanics, lesbians all the same. We're all people why change a character to be gay? Why does Spidermans sexuality even matter? 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. And speaking of James Bond some people weren't happy that Daniel Craig was the new Bond because he's blond. BLOND for goodness sakes! That's the kind of society we live in! This is kind of geeky, but fans of the Bond series cared about that because in the James Bond books Bond was supposed to be a dark haired, dark looking handsome man. Craig has the dark look and he's kind of handsome but the dark hair thing didn't match the books that's why a lot of the hardcore fans had a problem with it. They've all seemingly come around now though. He's added a lot to the series.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,794
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Jul 11, 2013 12:09:18 GMT -5
As some others have said. It's not a problem if Spiderman was gay but he never was gay. That's the issue. Everyone these days in the general public seems to be trying to show how pro gay they are which is great but the homosexuals and lesbians can't like it that much. It's kind of like some women who hate when men treat them better just because they're a woman. Why can't we treat asians, blacks, gays, hispanics, lesbians all the same. We're all people why change a character to be gay? Why does Spidermans sexuality even matter? And speaking of James Bond some people weren't happy that Daniel Craig was the new Bond because he's blond. BLOND for goodness sakes! That's the kind of society we live in! This is kind of geeky, but fans of the Bond series cared about that because in the James Bond books Bond was supposed to be a dark haired, dark looking handsome man. Craig has the dark look and he's kind of handsome but the dark hair thing didn't match the books that's why a lot of the hardcore fans had a problem with it. They've all seemingly come around now though. He's added a lot to the series. I wouldn't say just Pro-Gay. It's showing that you (generic you, not specific you) 'care' enough to push social causes, and that that makes you better than everyone else, because they're just intolerant bigots (or at best, they're "part of the problem because they're not part of the solution"). That seems to be the motivation of most. A club to bludgeon and demonize others with and make them feel guilty.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 11, 2013 12:10:58 GMT -5
Again though, "Spider-Man was never gay" is kind of mutable when you consider how much these characters shift and change with time. These heroes constantly shift around, from what powers they have, to what their full origin is, to what kind of personalities they take on, all of it based on what decade you're in, who's writing them, if they're currently being aimed at a more mature or younger audience, etc.
Once again, I'm 100% on board with the idea that if some of these companies want to push a gay superhero, they have ample opportunities with ones that previous writers have already created; they have to put the effort in to bring them to the forefront. However, I don't really see an argument why you can't make changes to existing characters, either, when you consider how there's really no one set backstory for all of these guys.
|
|
Surfer Sandman
Bubba Ho-Tep
You had to be a big shot, didn't cha
Posts: 506
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Jul 11, 2013 12:23:54 GMT -5
Why can't James Franco be a gay Spider-Man?
I have a man-crush on him. I'm not afraid to admit as a mostly hetero guy that's dabbled a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 11, 2013 12:29:23 GMT -5
Again though, "Spider-Man was never gay" is kind of mutable when you consider how much these characters shift and change with time. These heroes constantly shift around, from what powers they have, to what their full origin is, to what kind of personalities they take on, all of it based on what decade you're in, who's writing them, if they're currently being aimed at a more mature or younger audience, etc. Once again, I'm 100% on board with the idea that if some of these companies want to push a gay superhero, they have ample opportunities with ones that previous writers have already created; they have to put the effort in to bring them to the forefront. However, I don't really see an argument why you can't make changes to existing characters, either, when you consider how there's really no one set backstory for all of these guys. the thing is, though, a person's sexual preferences is central to their identity. it's the same as saying "well so what if he never had 8 arms before? in my version he does". I'll use V for Vendetta as an example. it was actually a pretty good film but in terms of V the character they completely missed the mark. he's supposed to be a crazy terrorist whose no better than the people he's fighting, and the writers changed it to make him more unambiguously heroic, thus completely undermining the point of the story in the first place. yeah characters can change a bit over time but characters, like real people, have elements that are immutable. you wouldn't go up to a real person and tell them "hey we're more cool with gay people now so you, be gay now!". the same holds true to fictional characters. it's like, if I made a movie about Captain America but had him wear a pink and green costume and had him played by Ken Jeong, yeah I could call it Captain America, but lord knows that it wouldn't be. "well I can change things just because I can" isn't really a very good reason to do so.
|
|
|
Post by aka Cthulhu on Jul 11, 2013 12:38:57 GMT -5
Well, it sounds like an interesting concept. On the other hand, in general everything is, and in the end it's all about the execution. A movie doesn't really seem like the best stage for that situation. Like, it'd probably be best if it was done in the comic books or something. To establish things, more or less, in a reboot of sorts, or something. Let it do things in the long run. In a movie, it'd either be in the lines of taking too much out of whatever superhero-y plot going on, or so minor that one won't see it as anything more than filler.
Really, in the end this applies to any big change in any relatively established story line; whether you change things up so that Peter would be gay, or a woman, or a talking spider, what matters is how you set things up.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,357
|
Post by Legion on Jul 11, 2013 12:45:41 GMT -5
I'd actually be annoyed if they made Spider-Man gay.
He isn't gay, and he wasn't presented as gay in the first movie, in any way. So beyond even the argument that it's a change from the source, it'd be a pretty big change from one film to the next.
But more than that, it would really irk me that the gay characters I support and enjoy, like Wiccan and Hulkling, or even Phylla-Vell and Moondragon at a push (but not Northstar, I've never liked Northstar), got ignored because someone wanted to court controversy and make an established and existing character suddenly gay, rather than work with other existing characters to build them up.
It was one of the things that annoyed me about the Alan Scott is a gay Green Lantern thing in Earth 2 - it wasn't done to promote homosexuality or help a cause or even because it was always suggested but never followed through, it was done to court controversy and generate a quick buck, and in doing so deleted one of DC's few actual gay male characters (at that point) in Obsidian. Why change his dad up when they had a perfectly good gay son right there they could have used? Because that wouldnt have courted controversy and generated sales is why.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Jul 11, 2013 12:56:25 GMT -5
I'd actually be annoyed if they made Spider-Man gay. He isn't gay, and he wasn't presented as gay in the first movie, in any way. So beyond even the argument that it's a change from the source, it'd be a pretty big change from one film to the next. But more than that, it would really irk me that the gay characters I support and enjoy, like Wiccan and Hulkling, or even Phylla-Vell and Moondragon at a push (but not Northstar, I've never liked Northstar), got ignored because someone wanted to court controversy and make an established and existing character suddenly gay, rather than work with other existing characters to build them up. It was one of the things that annoyed me about the Alan Scott is a gay Green Lantern thing in Earth 2 - it wasn't done to promote homosexuality or help a cause or even because it was always suggested but never followed through, it was done to court controversy and generate a quick buck, and in doing so deleted one of DC's few actual gay male characters (at that point) in Obsidian. Why change his dad up when they had a perfectly good gay son right there they could have used? Because that wouldnt have courted controversy and generated sales is why. Yeah, it was done to grab headlines as "one of their headliners was gay" despite that really not being the case. Hell even my mother who knows nothing about comic books asked me if I knew that they made Green Lantern gay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 13:25:21 GMT -5
I wouldn't say just Pro-Gay. It's showing that you (generic you, not specific you) 'care' enough to push social causes, and that that makes you better than everyone else, because they're just intolerant bigots (or at best, they're "part of the problem because they're not part of the solution"). That seems to be the motivation of most. A club to bludgeon and demonize others with and make them feel guilty. I can't speak for anyone else, but lemme go hard and catch hell for a minute: I couldn't care less about the feelings of a fandom that never misses an opportunity to raise a stink whenever someone even jokingly suggests having a well-known, iconic character be a member of a minority population. Because from where I'm sitting, if it was up to them, I'd never see anyone who looks like me actually have their stories told on the silver screen because it's never for the right reasons, or they don't want diversity shoved down their throats or however they can phrase it that won't make them look really bad. All I care about is a character who is a minority actually being a fully realized character and not a cardboard cutout used to pad out the story of "Straight White Guy Saves The World: Part MCDLXIII." It's a representation thing. Representation matters.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 11, 2013 14:07:24 GMT -5
I wouldn't say just Pro-Gay. It's showing that you (generic you, not specific you) 'care' enough to push social causes, and that that makes you better than everyone else, because they're just intolerant bigots (or at best, they're "part of the problem because they're not part of the solution"). That seems to be the motivation of most. A club to bludgeon and demonize others with and make them feel guilty. I can't speak for anyone else, but lemme go hard and catch hell for a minute: I couldn't care less about the feelings of a fandom that never misses an opportunity to raise a stink whenever someone even jokingly suggests having a well-known, iconic character be a member of a minority population. Because from where I'm sitting, if it was up to them, I'd never see anyone who looks like me actually have their stories told on the silver screen because it's never for the right reasons, or they don't want diversity shoved down their throats or however they can phrase it that won't make them look really bad. All I care about is a character who is a minority actually being a fully realized character and not a cardboard cutout used to pad out the story of "Straight White Guy Saves The World: Part MCDLXIII." It's a representation thing. Representation matters. The thing is, that fandom, by nature, will raise a stink about any kind of change. It's not just the idea of Spider-Man as gay or black, but any kind of change, stupid or otherwise, from changing his age or his back story (reboots, web shooters, Brand New Day, the weird future one, Doc Ock, etc), changing events of his life (Actress Aunt May, robotic parents, Gwen with Norman, Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer, etc) or changing people associated with him (New Goblin instead of Hobgoblin or Goblin in general, his costume, the Clone sage.) However, a good number of those changes can get accepted if the story being told in them makes it worth it. And, again, if white people getting represented more than your minority is so important, and Peter is changed to represent the minority more, does it mean that white people can no longer enjoy Spider-Man?
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,794
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Jul 11, 2013 14:09:14 GMT -5
I wouldn't say just Pro-Gay. It's showing that you (generic you, not specific you) 'care' enough to push social causes, and that that makes you better than everyone else, because they're just intolerant bigots (or at best, they're "part of the problem because they're not part of the solution"). That seems to be the motivation of most. A club to bludgeon and demonize others with and make them feel guilty. I can't speak for anyone else, but lemme go hard and catch hell for a minute: I couldn't care less about the feelings of a fandom that never misses an opportunity to raise a stink whenever someone even jokingly suggests having a well-known, iconic character be a member of a minority population. Because from where I'm sitting, if it was up to them, I'd never see anyone who looks like me actually have their stories told on the silver screen because it's never for the right reasons, or they don't want diversity shoved down their throats or however they can phrase it that won't make them look really bad. All I care about is a character who is a minority actually being a fully realized character and not a cardboard cutout used to pad out the story of "Straight White Guy Saves The World: Part MCDLXIII." It's a representation thing. Representation matters. If you have an issue with Straight White Guys, go take it up with a Straight White Guy. Not me. Because that's about as far from what I am as you could possibly get. I really don't appreciate being the target of these Saul Alinsky-type accusations. Nobody who fits my 'classification' is ever going to be the main character of anything. Personally? I don't really care that that's the case. I'm an individual, not a number in an identity box. Even if they did find someone in Hollywood of the exact same racial/ethnic makeup as me, I don't have any real desire to see them cast as a pre-existing established character, set to match up with my gender and sexuality (or lack thereof). It wouldn't make me feel better about myself. I get that others believe in 'representation', but I just don't. Stepping away from movies/TV for a moment, I'm not going to care about someone more than someone else just because of something as shallow as race, ethnicity, or sexuality. (Admittedly, maybe 20 years ago I would have, but certainly not now.)
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,357
|
Post by Legion on Jul 11, 2013 14:41:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't say just Pro-Gay. It's showing that you (generic you, not specific you) 'care' enough to push social causes, and that that makes you better than everyone else, because they're just intolerant bigots (or at best, they're "part of the problem because they're not part of the solution"). That seems to be the motivation of most. A club to bludgeon and demonize others with and make them feel guilty. I can't speak for anyone else, but lemme go hard and catch hell for a minute: I couldn't care less about the feelings of a fandom that never misses an opportunity to raise a stink whenever someone even jokingly suggests having a well-known, iconic character be a member of a minority population. Because from where I'm sitting, if it was up to them, I'd never see anyone who looks like me actually have their stories told on the silver screen because it's never for the right reasons, or they don't want diversity shoved down their throats or however they can phrase it that won't make them look really bad. All I care about is a character who is a minority actually being a fully realized character and not a cardboard cutout used to pad out the story of "Straight White Guy Saves The World: Part MCDLXIII." It's a representation thing. Representation matters. Because that well known character isnt well known as a minority character, they are known as what they are, which may be a straight white male, but that is still what they are. If you change that, you dont get most people excited or interested, you just piss people off and invite debate over reasons why people have done it and encourage people to act out against it. If a gay character was to appear, why not actually have them be a gay character? Use Wiccan, use Hulkling, use Moondragon, use crappy old Northstar, but dont go changing people as that just invites controversy and then the actual message or promotion for those who are looking to comic book heroes on the silver screen is lost amongst everyone hating on it because it's controversial. And that wouldnt just be a fandom, but anyone with an axe to grind against that specific minority. It's the same reason I dont think you can colour-blind cast a major hero. If you make a white hero black, the same controversy is invited and then suddenly any message is lost or becomes muddled. Better to do a Luke Cage film than make a F4 with a black Human Torch because then that controversy is gone and people can focus on whether the film is any good or not.
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Jul 11, 2013 15:13:12 GMT -5
I get that others believe in 'representation', but I just don't.
|
|
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 11, 2013 15:48:31 GMT -5
If you're going to make Spiderman Gay, why not have it as Miles Morales? I was going to ask about this because I remembered hearing that the current Ultimate Spider-Man was gay. Doesn't seem to be much of an issue, there. Not sure where you heard that, but not true at all. He is black/hispanic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 15:55:46 GMT -5
The thing is, that fandom, by nature, will raise a stink about any kind of change. It's not just the idea of Spider-Man as gay or black, but any kind of change, stupid or otherwise, from changing his age or his back story (reboots, web shooters, Brand New Day, the weird future one, Doc Ock, etc), changing events of his life (Actress Aunt May, robotic parents, Gwen with Norman, Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer, etc) or changing people associated with him (New Goblin instead of Hobgoblin or Goblin in general, his costume, the Clone sage.) However, a good number of those changes can get accepted if the story being told in them makes it worth it. And, again, if white people getting represented more than your minority is so important, and Peter is changed to represent the minority more, does it mean that white people can no longer enjoy Spider-Man? I don't know, dude. I'm expected to relate to straight white people on screen time and time again. So... I mean, in this topic it's about Spider-Man being gay. We aren't talking about trivial things like web-shooters or anything like that, this is a specific type of complaint that I always see in the fandom that boils down to "Keep your diversity out of our canon" whenever anything like this springs up. I bring it up because you have people saying this IN THIS TOPIC. How long do some of y'all expect to keep saying this drumbeat and have nobody say anything? And Spider-Man being gay would make him a member of a type of minority population, I'd assume Peter Parker would still be a white dude. I get that others believe in 'representation', but I just don't. Huh? I never assumed anything about who you are other than what you posted here. And ain't nobody bashing you for not caring. Like, if you don't care then it is what it is. If you don't even care or believe in representation then I don't see why you'd even weigh in. Because, bruh? I don't be asking you to care one way or another. If you change that, you dont get most people excited or interested, you just piss people off and invite debate over reasons why people have done it and encourage people to act out against it. If a gay character was to appear, why not actually have them be a gay character? Use Wiccan, use Hulkling, use Moondragon, use crappy old Northstar, but dont go changing people as that just invites controversy and then the actual message or promotion for those who are looking to comic book heroes on the silver screen is lost amongst everyone hating on it because it's controversial. And that wouldnt just be a fandom, but anyone with an axe to grind against that specific minority. It's the same reason I dont think you can colour-blind cast a major hero. If you make a white hero black, the same controversy is invited and then suddenly any message is lost or becomes muddled. Better to do a Luke Cage film than make a F4 with a black Human Torch because then that controversy is gone and people can focus on whether the film is any good or not. Again though, you can't wait on people to "feel comfortable" before you start introducing true variety and diversity. (I mean, who exactly are you waiting on to "feel comfortable?") If you wait on people to "feel comfortable" before you start representing you'd be waiting forever. And this isn't about using other characters that could be gay. Though it's interesting all the gay characters you mention are members of an ensemble team so it's not the same thing as the titular character being gay. Anyway that point doesn't directly address this being about Spider-Man. I mean, if they were feeling lucky they could adapt some gay characters to the screen while also having Spider-Man be gay... And nyet, comrade. This isn't like actual colorblind casting. I didn't even make that comparison. Just because I said "minority" doesn't mean I was referring to racial ones in the US. I am kinda scared that other people keep making those comparisons to talk about how they don't agree with it though...that's a whole 'nother deal I ain't touching.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,357
|
Post by Legion on Jul 11, 2013 16:04:16 GMT -5
Sorry, I just dont agree with you.
I cannot see how making a straight character gay promotes anything or changes anyone's opinion. It just fuels controversy and diverts attentions from the actual issues of equality.
Why does Spider-Man being gay promote gays any better than if they make a YA film and include Wiccan and Hulkling?
Why does making a straight character gay make that character better to relate to than an actual gay character, silver screen or not?
I know who and what I am, I like to read/watch things about gay characters, because sure, I can associate more with some of their issues (though not always the actual character), but I've no issue with the majority of characters or whatever being straight because the majority of people are straight, and beyond that, gay, straight, bi, black, white, green, blind, deaf, physically disabled, mentally disabled or just plain 'normal,' if the film/book is good and the story is good and the emotions are presented well, I can still get just as much from that story as I could something with a character more 'like me.'
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 11, 2013 16:37:06 GMT -5
The thing is, that fandom, by nature, will raise a stink about any kind of change. It's not just the idea of Spider-Man as gay or black, but any kind of change, stupid or otherwise, from changing his age or his back story (reboots, web shooters, Brand New Day, the weird future one, Doc Ock, etc), changing events of his life (Actress Aunt May, robotic parents, Gwen with Norman, Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer, etc) or changing people associated with him (New Goblin instead of Hobgoblin or Goblin in general, his costume, the Clone sage.) However, a good number of those changes can get accepted if the story being told in them makes it worth it. And, again, if white people getting represented more than your minority is so important, and Peter is changed to represent the minority more, does it mean that white people can no longer enjoy Spider-Man? I don't know, dude. I'm expected to relate to straight white people on screen time and time again. So... I mean, in this topic it's about Spider-Man being gay. We aren't talking about trivial things like web-shooters or anything like that, this is a specific type of complaint that I always see in the fandom that boils down to "Keep your diversity out of our canon" whenever anything like this springs up. I bring it up because you have people saying this IN THIS TOPIC. How long do some of y'all expect to keep saying this drumbeat and have nobody say anything? The examples I gave changed realities, continuities, behaviors and such in the stories they were presented and did a lot to affect how people saw Peter Parker . How is all that trivial compared to whether Peter likes guys or girls? And, really if you honestly think everything else is just trivial compared to a sexual orientation change, you're destroying your own argument. If you're making it seem like this albatross a character has to deal with, well then of course you're gonna get some push back. It's not an issue of the minority itself, like you're making it out to be. Again, ANY CHANGE is looked down on,especially if seen as for the sake of change, and has nothing to do with this "Keep minorities out of our things" idea.
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,702
|
Post by Square on Jul 11, 2013 16:38:36 GMT -5
Because it would destroy decades of history and kill off strong, female characters for no reason at all?
|
|
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 11, 2013 16:46:42 GMT -5
Because it would destroy decades of history and kill off strong, female characters for no reason at all? That is probably the only real strong argument against it in this thread so far, good job.
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,702
|
Post by Square on Jul 11, 2013 16:48:18 GMT -5
Because it would destroy decades of history and kill off strong, female characters for no reason at all? That is probably the only real strong argument against it in this thread so far, good job. From now on I am only posting after reading the title!
|
|