Sektor
Unicron
The OTHER Big Red Machine.
Posts: 2,808
|
Post by Sektor on Jul 11, 2013 16:52:18 GMT -5
If you turned Spiderman gay, we'd never get a theatrical version of him killing MJ with his radioactive semen. I don't want to live in that world.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jul 11, 2013 17:06:55 GMT -5
I can't find a more eloquent way of putting this after trying to for a while now, so excuse how all over the place this is - I f***ing hate Marvel. I hate their comics, their movies, the way they treat artists and creators, and everything about them. They're a safe, bland money making machine. Of course they're not going to take risks like this. It's alarming something like this would be a risk in the first place. Playing with formats and taking risks is what makes good art, but Marvel and their movies mean about as much to good art as a used condom means to a good hamburger. Steve Ditko isn't getting paid for any of this silly bullshit.
Dredd is probably the only interesting non Dark Knight comic book movie in years, but with that shitting the bed we're stuck with beautiful blonde studs flying around battling mecha dragons and saving the girl. AAWEHRHGEGHEGHG!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 17:52:55 GMT -5
I can't address everybody so the first to be going are the people who are talking about how they don't "get" the reason for representation. Sorry man. I just ain't got the time to explain to people why it's important to see people who look like and are like them on-screen, or how that affects self-esteem and all that humanization stuff. 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? Because it's about the representation of a minority. All that web-shooters or not shit isn't important with regards to what I'm saying. ...and here I am, as a minority who has definitely seen and dealt with fandom backlash over suggestions similar to changing Spider-Man's sexuality, telling you that's where a lot of this stuff comes from. I've lived it. I've spent too many years of my life studying stuff just like this to act like it doesn't exist. Man, people are even outright saying it in this topic and again, I can't help but notice some people using it as a gateway to complain about more "forced diversity." Dude, I don't wanna look at people sideways and I know it's gonna piss people off, but I ain't gonna ignore what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Jul 11, 2013 18:06:36 GMT -5
.....but would he be serious gay or just gay? Actually a gay Sirius: You keed, but Oldman played him kinda gay if you ask me. Him AND Thewlis gave the slash community their money's worth, especially in the third film. As for the OP, even if he was kidding, I wouldn't have a problem with it, personally. Wasn't too long ago that Spiderman wasn't black, until he was. I think a whole lot of people in this thread have Spiderman and Peter Parker confused. Peter Parker isn't black or gay; he is, however, Spiderman. Miles Morales is black; he's also Spiderman, ergo, Spiderman is black. If they make a new Spiderman in a different universe who's gay, you have a gay Spiderman. Personally, I don't see the big deal, so long as they make new characters and go with a new story, rather than tweaking the ones they already have just for the sake of tweaking.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 11, 2013 18:13:03 GMT -5
Because it's about the representation of a minority. All that web-shooters or not shit isn't important with regards to what I'm saying. What arbitrary sillyness. Change is change. this is not about minority representation, and more about the characterization of a single character and the fallout from said change. And, to be honest, and with all due respect,"what you've gone through" means nothing. Why? Cause it's not about you, what you've gone through, or what you studied. This is a comic book character, in a comic book world, with comic book rules. Same in every other mode of story. This is about a teenager that gains super powers from a radioactive spider bite and deals with the pressures of living in a big city and dealing with his social pressures while also fighting a vast array of colorful baddies. you can tell it however you like, to varying degrees of success, but there is that core of that character. In the end, it doesn't matter what Peter likes or believes, it's about who he is: A hero. Gay. Straight. Bi-Curious. Asexual. Black. White. Brown. Green. Blue. Christian. Atheist. Muslim. Church of Ed Wood. Whatever you make someone, make him a PERSON first. Forget anything else, tell me why I should give a damn first. Then you can have people that make that personal connection, even when the viewer themselves does not share any trait with said character. It's why we have people latching onto anthropomorphic animals, puppets, 2D animated and CGI animated people, characters from different time periods, places, genres, all across years upon years of popular culture. That's all I'm asking for.
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Jul 11, 2013 18:44:30 GMT -5
Since he's not materially actually anything other than a combination of line, colour, and written text on the page, Spider-Man could be a woman, he could be gay, he could be black, he could be a wombat, he could be an alien, he could be a robot, he could be a banana, he could be an acronym (S.P.I.D.E.R.M.A.N.), he could be anything that the writer writes the character to be, anything that the illustrator illustrates him to be, or anything that the reader reads him to be. It is the determination of effects, if not, indeed, the overdetermination of effects (as this thread evinces), that in sum and in network with one another that make up the concept which is named 'Spider-Man' that has become the cause of consternation of many here. Mind you, the labour, the effort, and the amount of text written about who or what constitutes a 'spidered man' is astonishing for its sheer energy when such focus and dedication could be employed elsewhere to phenomena that are more pressing, more consequential, and in many ways much more real than what we're dealing with here.
|
|
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 18:48:41 GMT -5
It's not about you, what you've gone through, or what you studied. I'm so glad I wasn't the one who had to say it.
|
|
|
Post by DZ: WF Legacy on Jul 11, 2013 19:17:37 GMT -5
The perfect way to introduce a gay super hero isn't by injecting forced diversity into an iconic character like Spidey, it's by naturally introducing it with a less established person or preferably a brand new hero. If the entire movie for Super Gay Man (tentative title) has good story development, writing, and makes you genuinely like and care for a character, a Metroid-esque twist at the end that reveals he's gay would actually be welcomed. You don't have to beat people over the head with it (or do something flamboyant and obnoxious), you just swerve them a bit and go from there in the sequel.
Some minds are set in stone, but some minds just need to be touched in a way to understand. You give them something honest they can get behind and show them that despite all this, yeah, he's gay - deal with it, and you'll probably get through to the latter with the message. And for the rest of us already living in the 21st century, you provide more intrigue that you don't see everyday in a character, and that can translate well into sequels.
|
|
|
Post by wildojinx on Jul 11, 2013 20:14:01 GMT -5
Why stop there? Why not keep Uncle Ben alive (he could still be shot, but survive)? How about giving Peter Parker a happy life for once?
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Jul 11, 2013 20:56:51 GMT -5
But if he was gay how could Spider-Man ever wind up with his one true love - Indy!
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Jul 11, 2013 21:08:56 GMT -5
But if he was gay how could Spider-Man ever wind up with his one true love - Indy! Yeah, that series... Dude didn't have to look like a Rob Liefeld creation, but a little mass wouldn't have hurt. That's just one of the problems I had with it...
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 11, 2013 21:14:55 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. to be fair, NOBODY likes Northstar. it's like they looked at Quicksilver and thought "how can we make this guy even more of an insufferable dick?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 21:36:06 GMT -5
Because it's about the representation of a minority. All that web-shooters or not shit isn't important with regards to what I'm saying. What arbitrary sillyness. Change is change. this is not about minority representation, and more about the characterization of a single character and the fallout from said change. And, to be honest, and with all due respect,"what you've gone through" means nothing. Why? Cause it's not about you, what you've gone through, or what you studied. This is a comic book character, in a comic book world, with comic book rules. Same in every other mode of story. This is about a teenager that gains super powers from a radioactive spider bite and deals with the pressures of living in a big city and dealing with his social pressures while also fighting a vast array of colorful baddies. you can tell it however you like, to varying degrees of success, but there is that core of that character. In the end, it doesn't matter what Peter likes or believes, it's about who he is: A hero. You know, I was just mentioning the fact that I've studied it because representation in the media is really a LEGITIMATE FIELD OF STUDY that they have pages on in the internet. I mention I'm living it because yeah, I'm one of those groups that's been getting the short straw in media representation for ages, that's baffled at it regressing once we get past the 90s. It's not about holding any type of book-learnin' over your head. It's not about you and how much offense it causes to your comic book sensibilities. Whether he's gay or not isn't going to affect how much of a hero he is, but like people said, it's going to affect the way people see him. Him being a member of a minority population would do wonders for everyone who has a hard time seeing themselves in the high profile Spider-Man has, he'll still be everything you say he is, but he'd be gay. This is about something much bigger than keeping to the apparently ironclad, never changeable rules written upon the golden mountaintop that apparently some people believe Spider-Man's sexuality to be. Dude, why are you posting that after I just said it's not about getting you to care? This is an issue that seriously affects people's lives. Like, man...I ain't going all over the internet to get you to care. You say you don't care? That's fine. No, REALLY. It is. I just wouldn't spend all this time on the internet arguing with people who do care. I mean, you obviously do care. You say you don't, but you wouldn't be here talking to me so much if you didn't. So...c'mon man. Do you care about representation or don't you? Because I'm going to keep on truckin', man. So if people can latch on to animals, puppets, 2D Animated people and all that, what's the problem with making Spider-Man gay? People will complain? As a lot of people said, hardcore comic book fans complain about even the trivial things, his sexuality would be a very big deal considering he's a high-profile and iconic character. People won't be able to relate? Gay people in the US have had to relate to people who didn't look or act like them all the time and people seem to be just fine with that, so for straight people to have to relate to a character who is gay is great.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 11, 2013 22:07:13 GMT -5
Because 'stunt' change for the sake of change is always a dumb idea.
And let's be honest, that's what this would be; it wouldn't be because someone had a good story to tell with a gay Spider-man that came out of an organic idea, this would be solely a "HEY LOOK AT THIS!" stunt. Forget all the issues with canon or whether not a fictional character has immutable defining characteristics, giving a character a 'stunt' trait solely to garner talk and nothing more is just shitty storytelling, doesn't matter if it's making straight Spidey gay or revealing he has a horrible allergy to peanuts.
Further, if it's totally cool to "turn" a historically straight character gay, would it be absolutely kosher to do it the other way 'round? I suspect that it wouldn't to most people, and I understand that, but the argument would seemingly have to work both ways if you're only saying it doesn't matter. Otherwise you'resimply trying to shoehorn in a cause that if you're advocating. If that's the case, fine, but let's not cloak in a flimsy argument that falls apart if you look at it the other way.
Some other things: yeah Steve Ditko got royally screwed every which way via not getting the credit he deserved. But him not getting the $ for the films is his own fault cuz he's turned it down cuz of his Objectivist beliefs. It sucks, but he seems to be steadfast there.
There have been MULTIPLE attempts to get a film made before 2002. As early as the 70's. There were annoucementsin the press in 92 based on James Cameron's treatment, before Carolco went bankrupt. A decade of lawsuits ensued. So it wasn't like Marvel waited for no reason.
Also, sure the goal is to have the broadest audience possible, and fans can be unreasonable, but at the same time without those fans, there wouldn't be a property anyway. So to assume they don't matter at all seems pretty silly.
End of the day, you can change any facet of a character, but unless it's coming from a real place of creative passion, it's completely disingenuous, no matter the change.
Diversity is great and important. Forced diversity seems pandering and insulting to the very group you're trying to include, and less about the diversity and more about antagonism for its own sake. That doesn't serve the minority or the majority.
|
|
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 22:09:35 GMT -5
As a lot of people said, hardcore comic book fans complain about even the trivial things, his sexuality would be a very big deal considering he's a high-profile and iconic character. People won't be able to relate? Gay people in the US have had to relate to people who didn't look or act like them all the time and people seem to be just fine with that, so for straight people to have to relate to a character who is gay is great. And this is where I point out that nobody has to do anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 22:20:28 GMT -5
And this is where I point out that nobody has to do anything. Maaan...for someone who wants to play like they don't give a shit, you're right. You sure you aren't playing? To wrap it all up because...yeah... I never said anyone had to do anything. There's a lot of things you don't have to do, but yeah. Arguing because someone is "forcing diversity" on you and stuff like that falls under the "Whoa, that's pretty shitty" category. I mean, when I say "this really does affects people's lives!" and what I get in response is "I don't believe you!" or "so what? I don't care." You don't exactly leave me with a lot of options.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 11, 2013 22:21:07 GMT -5
Because 'stunt' change for the sake of change is always a dumb idea. And let's be honest, that's what this would be; it wouldn't be because someone had a good story to tell with a gay Spider-man that came out of an organic idea, this would be solely a "HEY LOOK AT THIS!" stunt. Forget all the issues with canon or whether not a fictional character has immutable defining characteristics, giving a character a 'stunt' trait solely to garner talk and nothing more is just shitty storytelling, doesn't matter if it's making straight Spidey gay or revealing he has a horrible allergy to peanuts. Further, if it's totally cool to "turn" a historically straight character gay, would it be absolutely kosher to do it the other way 'round? I suspect that it wouldn't to most people, and I understand that, but the argument would seemingly have to work both ways if you're only saying it doesn't matter. Otherwise you'resimply trying to shoehorn in a cause that if you're advocating. If that's the case, fine, but let's not cloak in a flimsy argument that falls apart if you look at it the other way. Some other things: yeah Steve Ditko got royally screwed every which way via not getting the credit he deserved. But him not getting the $ for the films is his own fault cuz he's turned it down cuz of his Objectivist beliefs. It sucks, but he seems to be steadfast there. There have been MULTIPLE attempts to get a film made before 2002. As early as the 70's. There were annoucementsin the press in 92 based on James Cameron's treatment, before Carolco went bankrupt. A decade of lawsuits ensued. So it wasn't like Marvel waited for no reason. Also, sure the goal is to have the broadest audience possible, and fans can be unreasonable, but at the same time without those fans, there wouldn't be a property anyway. So to assume they don't matter at all seems pretty silly. End of the day, you can change any facet of a character, but unless it's coming from a real place of creative passion, it's completely disingenuous, no matter the change. Diversity is great and important. Forced diversity seems pandering and insulting to the very group you're trying to include, and less about the diversity and more about antagonism for its own sake. That doesn't serve the minority or the majority. considering it's still considered a "nerd" trait for whatever reason, I'm surprised they never gave Spidey a peanut allergy.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Jul 11, 2013 22:25:17 GMT -5
I just think it's ridiculous to use Spiderman of all things as some kind of representation. Representation doesn't mean anything if no one cares. I doubt many people are going to walk away from Spiderman thinking "gee, never thought of it like THAT before!".
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 11, 2013 22:28:26 GMT -5
So if people can latch on to animals, puppets, 2D Animated people and all that, what's the problem with making Spider-Man gay? The characters affect the people even though they share the same traits. It's the point. Heck, I know a lot of people were able to come out cause of TV shows that featured no gay characters, or even people. It's not exactly a requirement. Also, if you're so adamant to have a gay Spider-Man, you can have it, as long as it's done well, and also that you don't write a gay Spider-Man, but rather a Spider-man story. Let me leave it with this. I call it the Izzard theory, after Eddie Izzard: What are you suppose to think when you see Eddie Izzard? Are you suppose to think "What a poof, to go around and wear women's clothes? what of the children?!" Are you suppose to think "I applaud him for being true to himself and damn all the prejudiced people?" No. you're suppose to think "Funny Comedian." Cause whether in a suit or China Dress, The Death Star Canteen skit is still funny as f***.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 22:37:14 GMT -5
The characters affect the people even though they share the same traits. It's the point. Heck, I know a lot of people were able to come out cause of TV shows that featured no gay characters, or even people. It's not exactly a requirement. It isn't a requirement. It's just shitty and psychologically damaging to really have large portions of our media where people aren't represented or are just two-dimensional tokens. I already said that. "I applaud him for being true to himself and damn all the prejudiced people." can also be wrapped up in "Funny Comedian." It's not either-or. Hell, sometimes that can be the difference to just thinking "eh, he's pretty cool," to "man, that dude is friggin' funny, I wonder what else he's been in?"
|
|