Andrew Garfield suggest Spider-man be gay

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't say that Iron Man was more successful than The Dark Knight. However, it was certainly successful.

[Grumman]

I wouldn't say that Iron Man was more successful than The Dark Knight. However, it was certainly successful.

I concede the point - I checked Batman Begins but not The Dark Knight, so I didn't realise how much it had made.

[Simon_Jester]

For each superhero, there are a few defining characteristics that really need to be there for them to be recognizable.

For Superman, it's his powers and his ethics- he's extremely strong and powerful, and he's as restrained as possible in the use of those powers because he's the Big Blue Boy Scout. That's his image.

For, say, Batman, it's his dedication to fighting crime, his double life as a billionaire and a crime-fighter, and so on.

For Spiderman, it's his agile wits, his humor, and his relationship with MJ.

Changing that relationship is a bit risky, shall we say, if we want the character to remain compelling.

Actually, now that I think about it, making Batman gay would probably cause much less of a distortion of the character, because Batman is most certainly not defined by his relationship with women- if anything, he's defined by his lack thereof.

[Darksider]

For Spiderman, it's his agile wits, his humor, and his relationship with MJ.

Changing that relationship is a bit risky, shall we say, if we want the character to remain compelling.

Actually, now that I think about it, making Batman gay would probably cause much less of a distortion of the character, because Batman is most certainly not defined by his relationship with women- if anything, he's defined by his lack thereof.

Relationship with MJ huh?

[Crazedwraith]

For each superhero, there are a few defining characteristics that really need to be there for them to be recognizable.

For Spiderman, it's his agile wits, his humor, and his relationship with MJ.

So Garfield's first film was unrecognisable?

The problem, to my mind, about just creating new character to be guy. Is do any new characters ever approach to the recognition and iconicity of existiing characters like Spider-Man, Batman etc? Any new character end up, at best, being token c list characters. At least to non-comic book fans.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

For Spiderman, it's his agile wits, his humor, and his relationship with MJ.

And if, as in Garfield's suggestion, the MJ in this story is a man rather than a woman, how is this taken away? Is Parker pining for the red-headed boy next door something unworkable?

[Tsyroc]

I can't say I'm in favor of the idea in terms of the next movie but I find the idea of Peter being gay something that could make for some interesting stories. I wouldn't change the sex of MJ or Gwen Stacy to male. Spiderman already has more than enough male characters who could be his romantic interests. I think Ultimate Spiderman already suggested that Flash Thompson might be gay so that's an option. To me it would be most interesting if Peter's best friend, Harry Osborn, was his romantic interest. Harry could be Peter's boyfriend, or not, and it adds even more emotional impact to Norman Osborn being Peter's worst super villain. Plus, just think of what could happen if Harry still goes through a period where he hates Spiderman, or where he goes insane from taking the Goblin formula and becoming the second Green Goblin.

[Justice]

Will the message actually get out if they make a new character gay? Will the average movie goer or comic book reader pick up a new book knowing that the lead is gay or can a new hero survive that storm if that fact is hidden? I think that the shock of making an established character gay, if done well, can do more to get the message out.

.... Or just be perceived as a cheap gimmick to sell comics, and quietly forgotten once a new writer takes over. Remeber ultimate asian wasp? Who turned white before being eaten by Blob?

In fairness, they killed off Russian Black Widow and turned her Asian.

[Simon_Jester]

What I was trying to get at earlier is that for every longstanding characters, there are certain things that it is... artistically a bad choice to tamper with.


For example, Batman's story revolves around the death of his parents, his lifelong desire for revenge against criminals, his detective skills, and the great wealth and dedication he pours into achieving his goals. Making Batman poor, not orphaned by criminals, or a dilettante crimefighter would drastically change the character, in ways that even going from "Caped Crusader" to "Dark Knight" would not.

You can make him African-American and it still works. You can make him gay and it still works. You can make him a woman and it still works. But when you get down to it, Batman (Batwoman?) still needs to be a rich man who, orphaned by criminals, devotes his (her?) life to fighting them with fists, wealth, agility, and a a first-rate mind.


Spider-Man, well, shares the "lost family to a criminal" motivation. Spider-Man works best if he is poor, or at the most middle-class; making Spiderman black would actually be a very natural thing to do in modern America and its socioeconomic context.

Aside from that, Spiderman's defining characteristics are wit (which can belong to anyone) and relationships. Making Spiderman gay (or female) wouldn't make it impossible to have interesting relationships and preserve the general 'flavor' of the character, but you'd have to rethink a lot of fundamentals in a way that would create a risk of things... not going well, shall we say. Of the character failing to convince and enthuse a large audience the way one expects, when one uses a big brand name like "Spiderman."

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Look, if you think the stories have to be significantly different if the gender of Parker's love interests is different, the problem's on your end. Sure, it opens up the option for new storylines, but you could tell the same exact kind of stories if you wanted to, too.

[Lord Revan]

My douts about are less not being able to picture Spiderman as a homosexual (be it male or female) and more on having douts that who ever is doing it will be able to do it so that it doesn't seem they turned spiderman gay to be edgy or "to have a message".

[Simon_Jester]

Look, if you think the stories have to be significantly different if the gender of Parker's love interests is different, the problem's on your end. Sure, it opens up the option for new storylines, but you could tell the same exact kind of stories if you wanted to, too.

Much of the appeal of a superhero character comes not from the (usually forgettable) stories, but from the character themself. People read Superman because they want to see adventures of the big blue boy scout. People read the Hulk because they want to see a nerdy scientist who turns into an unstoppable green ragemonster.

If you make Superman not a boy scout, or the Hulk's human form not a nerdy scientist, it might work. Then again, it might not work. If you try to do the Hulk as a meathead construction worker who just happens to turn into a bigger, greener meathead when he gets angry... you could end up with a character that is less interesting to most people. It's a big green ragemonster, but is it "the Hulk?" Remove the boy scout element and do you really have "Superman?"

My view is that for Spiderman, the cluster of relationships that surrounds the character defines him. If you have him, say, be a gay guy who's got a complicated relationship with Norman Osborn, it could work well, but it strikes me as gambling. You might get an artistically better result if you take that "character's deep sincere relationship is with someone who's also one of their worst enemies" premise and put it in a new character instead of an old one.

Having him be a gay guy who doesn't fight his love interests would probably work better in and of itself, but you're going to get people who basically complain that you just gave Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy or whoever a sex change to make Spiderman himself edgier. Again, you risk losing the winning formula that you're counting on to draw your audience.

There are a lot of comic book characters for whom this is less of a problem. Batman has always had a love/hate relationship with some of his antagonists, for example. And his civilian love interests have been pretty forgettable. Making him gay wouldn't change much of anything there.

[Ford Prefect]

My view is that for Spiderman, the cluster of relationships that surrounds the character defines him.

I actually think its spider-like abilities and mean spirited wise-ass personality that defines him.

[Darksider]

It wouldn't change the "core" of the character too much if MJ were a dude instead of a lady, but honestly, everybody who trusts the current Marvel writers to pull this off in a way that isn't shoe-horned or horribly offensive raise your hand.

[Batman]

I wouldn't exactly call Peter 'mean-spirited'. He's a wiseass no questions asked (I'd say that's one of the qualities people love him for) but mean, never. You go after his loved ones and you're going to get either lucky or seriously hurt but I don't think Peter ever hurt anybody (well, at least not beyond the high-school prank level) out of malice.
And while I have to admit I would be distressed by Peter (or me, or Clark, while we're at it) being gay-or female-the only reason I can give for this is 'but we never have been for half a century or more', which isn't really much of a reason.

And yes, sorry, Peter's relationships have if not always, then for as much as I have seen of his career as The Friendly Neighbourhood Wall-Crawler been an essential part of who and what Spider-Man is. Whether or not you can duplicate that with a gay Spider-Man (or even a gay/hetero Spider-Woman) I don't feel qualified to comment on, it's as much a part of the Wall-Crawler myth as his powers and the eternal wisecracking are.

[Ford Prefect]

I wouldn't exactly call Peter 'mean-spirited'.

Yes, and you pretend that you're Batman. I'm not really convinced you're that in touch with reality.

Peter Parker is, and has been for a very long time, a bully.

[Havok]

You don't need an A lister in the lead to make an immensely popular film. Iron Man wasn't an A list hero until the RDJ movie made him one, and that was pretty much the successful superhero movie until the Avengers blew everything out of the water.

Iron Man was absolutely already an A-Lister, as far as comics go, he just wasn't quite household iconic like Superman, Batman and Spider-Man.
And fucking Superman, Superman II, Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight The X-Men movies, 300, Sin City[i/], The Crow, both Fantastic Four movies, The Mask, Conan the Barbarian[i/], Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Wanted and not to mention, and you are a complete moron for dismissing these, The McGuire Spider-Man movies.

Even under the tightest definition of "successful" all of these movies qualify and they all were out before the Avengers, most decades before. They just weren't the spectacle that the Avengers was combining multiple heroes in one movie.

[Havok]

I wouldn't exactly call Peter 'mean-spirited'.

Yes, and you pretend that you're Batman. I'm not really convinced you're that in touch with reality.

Peter Parker is, and has been for a very long time, a bully.

Please, being a wise ass to super villains hardly makes him a "bully".

[CarsonPalmer]

I wouldn't exactly call Peter 'mean-spirited'.

Yes, and you pretend that you're Batman. I'm not really convinced you're that in touch with reality.

Peter Parker is, and has been for a very long time, a bully.

I mostly feasted on reprints of 1960's/early 1970's Spider-man, so maybe I'm out of touch, but at least the classic Spider-Man (adn the 1990s cartoon Spider-Man) seemed much more snarky than bully.

[Havok]

Spider-Man only has two defining relationships and that is with his Uncle Ben and with Flash Thompson.
You could write out Aunt May, Gwen Stacey and Mary Jane Watson, make Peter Parker gay and it doesn't change anything.

Uncle Ben and his death represent his responsibility and sense of right and wrong while Flash represents everything Peter doesn't want to be while at the same time it drives his treatment of the villains he faces which he always views as bullies preying on the weak. These are the only two defining relationships needed to make Parker Spider-Man.

That said, and like I said before, making Parker gay adds nothing to the character or story. Especially in a stand alone setting like the movies.