Andrew Garfield suggest Spider-man be gay

[FaxModem1]

http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/07/10/an ... r-man-gay/

Andrew Garfield Suggests Making Spider-Man Gay

By: Scott Johnson on July 10, 2013

In : Amazing Spider-Man 2, Amazing Spider-Man Movie, Movies
- 8 Comments

Amazing Spider-Man 2Last year, when DC Comics announced that they would be making one of their established superheroes gay, it created quite a bit of news in the media. When Miles Morales was introduced as the Ultimate Spider-Man, there was also some media discussion over if he might be gay.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Andrew Garfield raises the idea of making the movie Spider-Man gay. In relaying a conversation he had with producer Matt Tolmach about Mary Jane, Andrew Garfield said, “I was kind of joking, but kind of not joking about MJ. And I was like, ‘What if MJ is a dude?’ Why can’t we discover that Peter is exploring his sexuality? It’s hardly even groundbreaking!…So why can’t he be gay? Why can’t he be into boys?”

Garfield even made a suggestion as to who he would have play the male version of Mary Jane. Garfield said, “I’ve been obsessed with Michael B. Jordan since The Wire. He’s so charismatic and talented. It’d be even better—we’d have interracial bisexuality!”

Entertainment Weekly also points out that this was not just something that just came up in their interview, but Andrew Garfield has discussed the idea with Amazing Spider-Man 2 director Marc Webb. Webb said, “Michael B. Jordan, I know.”

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is set to premiere in movie theaters on May 2, 2014.

Weird.

[tim31]

It's already been done

[Grumman]

Amazing Spider-Man 2Last year, when DC Comics announced that they would be making one of their established superheroes gay, it created quite a bit of news in the media.

Oh yeah, the time they unmade Alan Scott's gay son to make Alan gay instead, and then stuffed his gay fiance into the fridge in the first fucking issue. That was such a huge step forwards, right? Not like, say, Batwoman: Elegy, where the protagonist refused to violate her ethics to comply with DADT, even though it meant losing her career.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Andrew Garfield raises the idea of making the movie Spider-Man gay. In relaying a conversation he had with producer Matt Tolmach about Mary Jane, Andrew Garfield said, “I was kind of joking, but kind of not joking about MJ. And I was like, ‘What if MJ is a dude?’ Why can’t we discover that Peter is exploring his sexuality? It’s hardly even groundbreaking!…So why can’t he be gay? Why can’t he be into boys?”

Peter Parker shouldn't be gay for the same reason Peter Parker shouldn't be black - because he's a preexisting character with known traits, and if you're going to change them it should be for a better reason than "Why not?".

[Havok]

It's already been done

That was... disturbing.

[Spekio]

The ninja turtles one is worse.

[Havok]

Do not want.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Andrew Garfield raises the idea of making the movie Spider-Man gay. In relaying a conversation he had with producer Matt Tolmach about Mary Jane, Andrew Garfield said, “I was kind of joking, but kind of not joking about MJ. And I was like, ‘What if MJ is a dude?’ Why can’t we discover that Peter is exploring his sexuality? It’s hardly even groundbreaking!…So why can’t he be gay? Why can’t he be into boys?”

Peter Parker shouldn't be gay for the same reason Peter Parker shouldn't be black - because he's a preexisting character with known traits, and if you're going to change them it should be for a better reason than "Why not?".

Fixing the dearth of representation in media is a better reason than "why not". Garfield's choice to play MJ is also black so we'd end up with even more good stuff.

But really, answer this: how exactly does it make the movie any worse if Peter Parker isn't a white, straight guy?

[Sharp-kun]

Fixing the dearth of representation in media is a better reason than "why not".

While I have no real issue with a gay Spiderman if it was done well, surely creating a new character is a better way of fixing the representation issue than "hijacking" an existing one.

It also lets you create an identity for a character, rather than "well there was that one time Peter Parker was gay" and then it was never spoken of again as times moved on.

[Spekio]

Do not want.

There is also a duck tales one, as I just discovered.

Fixing the dearth of representation in media is a better reason than "why not". Garfield's choice to play MJ is also black so we'd end up with even more good stuff.

But really, answer this: how exactly does it make the movie any worse if Peter Parker isn't a white, straight guy?

There should be more ethnically diverse and/or non-heternormative leads, or even females, be on movies or otherwise. But it seems just lazy to just change one thing about a character because he's a preexisting character with known traits. Spider-man has always been "one of us". If we change his sexual orientation, just because, he becomes a "gay super-hero", not a hero who so happens to be gay. Or hell, just have him pass the torch to Miles Morales on Spider-man 2.

[The Romulan Republic]

To have more gay characters they can create new gay characters. I don't mind Parker being gay if it's in a reboot rather than contradicting an existing version of Spiderman, but new gay characters would be more original.

[Havok]

It obviously won't happen in this go round of films, but I could see this happening in a future series. Although I tend to agree new characters are the way to go, I can see this being an issue of "omg why can't Spider-Man be gay?!".

[Jub]

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.

[Spekio]

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?

[Havok]

And that is my problem with it. Are you doing it to make the character and story better or just to get a message out and what message is that exactly? The most sarcastic super hero is gay? I mean you might as well make Johnny Storm gay. It is just doing it to do it.

That said, your point is valid. If you just make a new character gay the social impact is lost.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

There should be more ethnically diverse and/or non-heternormative leads, or even females, be on movies or otherwise. But it seems just lazy to just change one thing about a character because he's a preexisting character with known traits. Spider-man has always been "one of us". If we change his sexual orientation, just because, he becomes a "gay super-hero", not a hero who so happens to be gay. Or hell, just have him pass the torch to Miles Morales on Spider-man 2.

I don't see why he'd wouldn't be a superhero who happens to be gay unless it's made a major part of the story or his characterisation. If you just have a typical Spider-man movie but the neighbor he crushes on named MJ is another guy, how would it be any different than a typical Spider-man movie where the neighbor he crushes on named MJ is a girl? Or is Spider-man currently a straight superhero rather than a superhero who happens to be straight?

Also I have to say your thing about "Spider-man has always been 'one of us'" with the implication that he won't be if he's gay is kind of disturbing unless I'm reading that wrong.

[Spekio]

I don't see why he'd wouldn't be a superhero who happens to be gay unless it's made a major part of the story or his characterisation. If you just have a typical Spider-man movie but the neighbor he crushes on named MJ is another guy, how would it be any different than a typical Spider-man movie where the neighbor he crushes on named MJ is a girl? Or is Spider-man currently a straight superhero rather than a superhero who happens to be straight?

Also I have to say your thing about "Spider-man has always been 'one of us'" with the implication that he won't be if he's gay is kind of disturbing unless I'm reading that wrong.

If they were to reboot the series, a gay spider-man could be done pretty well. But they are not, so it would just be a cheap publicity stunt. Spider-man being gay would overshadow whatever story they wanted to tell. After all, wasn't he after Gwen Stacy on ASM 1?

And by "one of us", I meant he is well know, in that people recognize and relate to the character and elements attached to him. I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights, and I'm sorry if the way I phrased my previous post indicated otherwise.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Well if he was after Gwen earlier, there's nothing stopping him from being bi. And why does it have to overshadow any story? Sure, in some people's minds "holy shit he's KISSING a GUY" would be the big thing they take away but there's literally no reason it has to actually be any bigger in the story than a hypothetical opposite-gender romance between Peter and MJ.

And I'd wonder about it being a publicity stunt. It sounds like something that'd drive away more people than it'd bring in, I think. I doubt a large number of people would go see a movie where MJ is played by Michael B Jordan but wouldn't if it were Kirsten Dunst (though there would be some), but there's a large group of people who try to keep anything "gay" away from them and their families, and, while it wouldn't be a big deal financially, you'd have a bunch of comic-book people avoiding it because it's changed "too much" or whatever.

[Grumman]

But really, answer this: how exactly does it make the movie any worse if Peter Parker isn't a white, straight guy?

Because all things being equal, accuracy is better than inaccuracy. Peter Parker being straight is not inherently worse than Peter Parker being gay, so you should default to an accurate depiction of the character.

I would hate it if they brought back Spoiler

Scandal Savage

and made her straight. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to extend the same courtesy to fans of Peter Parker.

[Havok]

Dude... some people's minds? Let's be honest about this, we are a small segment of the movie going community and even with our tolerance, probably half of us would be weird about Spider-Man kissing guys.

As far as overshadowing, it would downright eclipse any story. The only good aspect to gay Spidey is that it would put back the outcast feel that Spidey used to have as opposed to the ultra hipster that only one kid in school doesn't like.

[Spekio]

People love controversy. A lot of folks would just go to the cinema to see what the fuss is all about. No such thing as bad publicity, I believe.

But let's not kid ourselves. Peter won't be gay (and we won't get an ethnical spider man unless he is Will Smith) for the same reason Sue Storm will be white while Jhonny will be black: [sarcasm]People do not go to the movies to see blackies, spics nor women.[/sarcasm]

[Action Avenue]

Nothing against gay people at all, but it seems silly to me to change characteristics about long established iconic characters. If DC or Marvel (or any other comic book company) wants to include gay characters to be regular people or even super-heroes within their stable of characters, fine, but just create characters from scratch.

[Majin Gojira]

And they have. I dislike the idea of changing a character to be a minority if there's no subtext for it (intentional or not). The Gay characters just need to be pushed more into the public eye to really get going. Like, say, Rictor and Shatterstar would be fun to have as supporting characters in an X-Force movie (which they are toying with over at Fox). Or, if a Runaways movie is made, we get Karolina Dean and her crush on Nico who may or may not share the feelings. Young Avengers have a lot of their fandom thanks to Billy and Teddy.

On the DC side . . . I can barely think of any that still exist offhandedly. Obsidian comes to mind first, but he's gone with the reboot. There's Savat and Kreote from Birds of Prey, etc.

All that aside, a lot of people read gay subtext into any characters who so much as share a scene together.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Maybe people wouldn't read gay subtext into so much if it actually got a decent amount of representation in fiction :L

Also, why is the sexuality of a character whose primary storylines and themes don't deal with sexuality such an ironclad thing that can't be changed? Every adaptation of Spider-man changes things about the character (and this has to be the case or else you'll get the same story every time and why bother?). Why is this off-limits for change?

Demanding it come from new characters outright is pretty terrible. Almost all of the famous comic superheroes of America were created in an era where every character of note was a straight white guy. Anyone with name recognition is going to come from that flock, by default. Unless we're basically coming from the point where you might as well just make up new superheroes, you're not getting anything there.

[Jub]

Honestly, they've changed more major things about heroes before this. They've changed the man behind the mask, changed their sidekicks and many have had more than one love interest anyway. Does it change anything if the reason why a super hero hasn't stayed with a woman is because he's not realy into them? Does Batman, for instance, get any less bad ass if he secretly wants a fling with the commissioner? Hell think of a story that starts with Bats and Harvey Dent as lovers and ends with Two-face?

[Grumman]

Also, why is the sexuality of a character whose primary storylines and themes don't deal with sexuality such an ironclad thing that can't be changed? Every adaptation of Spider-man changes things about the character (and this has to be the case or else you'll get the same story every time and why bother?). Why is this off-limits for change?

Because it doesn't help you tell a different story, unless you're planning on beating the "being a gay person sucks" drum. It's also worth considering that one of the most unpopular things Marvel ever did with the character was to retcon his relationship with MJ out of existence. That makes your plan to retcon his relationship with MJ out of existence more difficult before it even starts.

Demanding it come from new characters outright is pretty terrible. Almost all of the famous comic superheroes of America were created in an era where every character of note was a straight white guy. Anyone with name recognition is going to come from that flock, by default. Unless we're basically coming from the point where you might as well just make up new superheroes, you're not getting anything there.

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.